- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:34:32 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: David Berlow <dberlow@fontbureau.com>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Sylvain wrote: > But if it helps reset the expectations of those who produce EOT - or will > produce EOT, until such time as the IE installed base supports a common format - > then sure. Resetting expectations is a good way to put it. This is how I see it: The OpenType specification does not create any expectation regarding relevance of embedding bits to web fonts, but it does leave significant ambiguity due to its failure to define what it means by 'document embedding' and its broadly described application of embedding bit 1. EOT created the expectation that embedding bits are related to web fonts, by explicitly describing a role for them in the EOT spec and enforcing that role in the MS WEFT tool. [Calling the format 'Embedded' OpenType also contributed to this expectation.] Given this situation, I believe any new web font format needs to clearly state whether or not embedding bits are relevant in order, as you say, to reset expectations. > (As long as we don't mention EOT) Agreed. JH
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 17:35:08 UTC