title: Is there a benefit to using multiple font file type sources when declaring a font-face?
body: <p>I see a chunk of code declared as such:</p>
  
  <pre><code>@font-face{
      font-family: 'SourceCodePro-Regular';
      font-weight: 400;
      font-style: normal;
      font-stretch: normal;
      src: local('SourceCodePro-Regular'),     
           url('assets/fonts/EOT/SourceCodePro-Regular.eot') format('embedded-opentype'),
           url('assets/fonts/WOFF2/TTF/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf.woff2') format('woff2'),
           url('assets/fonts/WOFF/OTF/SourceCodePro-Regular.otf.woff') format('woff'),
           url('assets/fonts/OTF/SourceCodePro-Regular.otf') format('opentype'),
           url('assets/fonts/TTF/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf') format('truetype');
  }
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Is there a benefit to having a bunch of different sources for this? ie. is there any benefit to requiring <code>truetype</code>, <code>opentype</code>, <code>woff</code>, <code>woff2</code>and <code>embedded-opentype</code>, or is there a source type that will work for everything?</p>
  
  <p>I assume this is for a fallback, but the documentation doesn't really talk about this: <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/%40font-face" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/%40font-face</a></p>