W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: WOFF FAQ (action 29)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:51:18 +0100
Message-ID: <276415981.20110205115118@w3.org>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
On Saturday, February 5, 2011, 1:00:37 AM, John wrote:

JH> David Berlow wrote:

>> John, thanks for your hard work on this. I would love to hear a number of responses to this from the SVG WG.

JH> I, too, would like some insight into where the SVG WG are with regard to
JH> WOFF. Some early reports on WOFF suggested that the SVG WG were 
JH> considering dropping SVG fonts from the conformance requirements for 
JH> SVG, hence my parenthetical comment in the FAQ draft that WOFF may 
JH> render SVG fonts unnecessary. I added this comment to the draft last 
JH> night, based on what I had read and understood from the state of play at
JH> the time of the face-to-face meeting in Lyon, but I am keen to know 
JH> whether a formal decision has been taken in this regard by the SVG WG,
JH> and how this would best be reflected in the wording of the WOFF FAQ.

JH> Chris L, is this something on which you can comment?

I have made a proposal that for SVG 2, the conformance requirements will require WOFF and will allow other formats (including SVG). SVG fonts would therefore become an optional module.

I would say that the proposal has met with some favour, some resistance, and that no decision has yet been taken because the WG is currently focussed on finishing SVG 1.1 Second Edition.




-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2011 10:57:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 February 2011 10:57:21 GMT