W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:13:11 +0200
Message-ID: <19017.11879.778131.706628@opera.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:

 > "Creating a new Fonts WG will steal the thunder from the current implementations."

 > I wouldn't expect you, of all people, to argue that respecting the
 > 'thunder' of current implementations should be a standardization
 > criteria. Or does that apply only when those existing
 > implementations are not Microsoft's ?

It'a a fair question. However, Microsoft's EOT efforts were dormant
when I started arguing for to revive webfonts [1]. Almost a decade
after EOT was introduced it was all but forgotten; there was no
thunder to steal from EOT.

This time, we have four implementations, two of which have shipped
(Safari, Prince) and two that are close to shipping (Mozilla, Opera).
As such, it's a crucial phase for web fonts, and chartering a new WG
to do new technical work is disruptive to interoperability.

[1] http://news.cnet.com/Microsofts-forgotten-monopoly/2010-1032_3-6085417.html

 > "If, say, web fonts are successful in five years, let's reconsider."

 > Why should we wait five more years ? All browsers support web fonts
 > in one way or another. Why should the web accept five more years of
 > font format fragmentation?

By making a new format, you increase the risk of format fragmentation.
If you have n formats and create a new format to replace the other
ones, you have n + 1 formats.

 > "If Microsoft does not make that interoperability commitment, they
 > should not be rewarded with a new Font WG." 

 > Please. This is not and should not be about Microsoft or any
 > individual browser vendor's own narrow interests. Interoperability
 > is yours to uphold too. Hundreds of millions of users run an
 > EOT-compatible browser. Why should they get screwed ? 

Are you saying that the new format must be backwards compatible
with deployed versions of IE?

 > We accept it's not up to us to pick the outcome; and if that means
 > dumping EOT, so be it.

And replacing it with a backwards-compatible format, I presume?
Otherwise, users would be equally "screwed", no?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 21:13:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:01 GMT