> Also, when implying that font-face has dealbreaking rendering quality issues, are you referring to their performance for setting body copy, or do you think it flat out doesn't work for display type either?
As of today, there seem to be very few fonts, even from the specialist services like Typekit, that render well across all browsers via @font-face. In my experience, this does apply to both body text and headline sizes, but what you might call the risk/reward ratio is different.
For typical body fonts, there is never going to be a huge difference in appearance between text set using @font-face and text set in well-established screen-friendly fonts like Verdana, Georgia and the Microsoft C-fonts, at least not until we get the kinds of resolutions now used on smartphones routinely available on full-size screens as well. IMHO, using @font-face for body text seems like asking for trouble today: poor hinting or antialiasing can literally render your text illegible, and there is hardly any potential upside anyway.
On the other hand, for headlines, pull quotes, and other text typically set a bit larger than body copy, you can get some genuine character in the font on a typical display today. There certainly are still problems -- many trendy graphic design blogs currently look terrible on my screen because they are trying to be too clever with this technology -- but the flaws are less significant relative to the overall effect, because things like antialiasing and hinting don't matter so much at larger sizes, and it's very unlikely that your text will actually be unreadable as a result. That means there is more incentive to use different fonts via whatever mechanism when you're setting larger text.