I'm hoping to understand what the difference is between embedding fonts in a site like this:
@font-face {
font-family: 'Kulturista Medium';
src: url('fonts/Kulturista Medium.eot');
src: local('☺'), url('fonts/Kulturista Medium.woff') format('woff'), url('fonts/Kulturista Medium.ttf') format('truetype'), url('fonts/Kulturista Medium.svg') format('svg');
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Kulturista Semibold';
src: url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold.eot');
src: local('☺'), url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold.woff') format('woff'), url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold.ttf') format('truetype'), url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold.svg') format('svg');
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
@font-face {
font-family: 'Kulturista Semibold Italic';
src: url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold Italic.eot');
src: local('☺'), url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold Italic.woff') format('woff'), url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold Italic.ttf') format('truetype'), url('fonts/Kulturista Semibold Italic.svg') format('svg');
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
vs. just loading one single font like this
@font-face {
font-family: 'Kulturista';
src: url('fonts/Kulturista.eot');
src: local('☺'), url('fonts/Kulturista.woff') format('woff'), url('fonts/Kulturista.ttf') format('truetype'), url('fonts/Kulturista Medium.svg') format('svg');
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
and styling with CSS
body {
font-family: 'Kulturista', Fallback, sans-serif;
font-style: italic;
font-weight: bold;
}
I imagine there's a benefit, otherwise you wouldn't want to load more resources.