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: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:21:16 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mxBiaegJBTzUHjfRZsGAOW9T1NyJREaWA-pM6Oou62-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Excellent. Sorry for the misleading summary and thanks for checking!
Cheers,
Silvia.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>wrote:

> 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>
> Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:37 PM
> To: Adobe <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> Cc: HTML WG <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>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 Wednesday, 9 January 2013 11:22:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 January 2013 11:22:03 GMT