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

Re: Minutes, 16 February 2011 WebFonts WG telcon

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:56:08 -0800
Message-ID: <4D617FE8.5050705@tiro.com>
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I suggest that in the absence of knowledge about the future, we should treat fonts the same as everything else. No coin toss needed.

And others suggest that in the absence of knowledge about the future we 
should treat fonts in the way in which it will be most beneficial to 
treat them now (and, apparently, how some people wish everything could 
be treated), and in a way compatible with existing implementations of 
@font-face same origin restriction in Firefox and IE.

My point re. the toin coss is that we don't seem to be progressing any 
further in this discussion than the initial positions established during 
the teleconference. As Sylvain pointed out then, there is good pragmatic 
reasoning on both side of the debate, and we don't seem to be moving 
anyone to significantly alter their opening positions.

Where we have had significant movement is away from CORS as a mechanism, 
which presumably makes Anne and Håkon happy. It makes me happy too in 
that I think FO looks like a better overall mechanism. This move has 
implications for the schedule of WOFF standardisation, and I think our 
time now would be better spent working out how to administratively 
minimise the delay involved in spec'ing FO, finding a home for it, and 
getting the CSS3 font module to reference it. As I understand it, there 
is general agreement in our group that the default interpretation of 
no-FO header for fonts will be @font-face rather than WOFF specific, so 
is ultimately something that we'll only be referencing in the WOFF spec. 
Yes? As the web fonts working group, I think we can and should present a 
clearly worded recommendation on this default interpretation, but the 
debates we are having here will doubtless also take place in CSS circles.

Received on Sunday, 20 February 2011 20:56:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:15 UTC