lucy24 - 11:18 pm on Mar 7, 2012 (gmt 0)

The main difference seems to be that g###'s fonts are smaller downloads, based on the character range in the ones I looked at. That's the second-most important issue for the end user-- after the primary issue of whether the browser supports @font-face rules at all. (It's CSS3, so many won't.)

Sample CSS from their version:

@font-face { font-family: 'Seaweed Script'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; src: local('Seaweed Script'), local('SeaweedScript-Regular'), url('http://themes.googleusercontent.com/static/fonts/{bunch more stuff which I've snipped') format('woff'); }

Oops, I take that back. Does "woff" stand for "wtf kind of font is this"? Shades of the old otf or whatever it is that MSIE used to use.

Which is the best way actually?

h1, h2, h3 {font-family: option1, "option two", option3, sans-serif;}

Sorry. I'll leave quietly.