W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Bitmap fonts in HTML (was: Re: Staged bugs & editorial fixes for HTML5.0, and staged WHATWG patches for HTML5.1)

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 04:31:20 -0800
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD117B94.65BC%lrosenth@adobe.com>
Thanks!

So it was just a removal of a recommendation to use vector fonts.  It doesn't actually say anything positive (or even directly) about any type of fonts.  OK  that seems completely innocuous.

Leonard

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:37 PM
To: Adobe <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org<mailto:public-html@w3.org>>
Subject: Bitmap fonts in HTML (was: Re: Staged bugs & editorial fixes for HTML5.0, and staged WHATWG patches for HTML5.1)

(moving to its own thread)

Hi Leonard,

The relevant commit is this: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7586&to=7587

My quick and dirty summary did not represent everything that is happening there, so please read the full patch to get all the details.

Regards,
Silvia.


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote:
>* allow use of bitmap fonts (7587)
>
This one REALLY concerns me for a variety of reasons.  Can you point to where in the WHATWG spec this lives?

However, I can't think of a single good reason to include this in HTML  and LOTS of reasons to reject it.

Thanks,
Leonard
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 12:31:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:36 UTC