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

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24601713.442211246326851846.JavaMail.root@cm-mail01.mozilla.org>

Note that Ascender is now proposing EOT minus root strings/compression:

  http://blog.fontembedding.com/post/2009/06/29/Revised-Web-Fonts-Proposal.aspx

Implicit in both this and their old proposal is the assumption that this is the *only* web font format, that TTF/OTF fonts are not linkable resources.  So web authors using either free fonts or fonts with a license that permits direct linking would be forced through extra hoops for no tangible benefit whatsoever.

Obfuscated/compression schemes are fine but not if it implies that we make things harder rather than easier for some users.

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
To: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: "Vladimir Levantovsky" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, www-font@w3.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:18:44 AM GMT +09:00 Japan
Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback


>From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]


>No. (at this point, I could become personally offended for you trying
>to put words in my mouth, but I won't :-)
I'm glad we feel the same :)


>Was PNG that hard?
It sure took long, by your own account. But yes, formalizing a lightweight encoding proposal like Ascender's should be a lot less work than specifying a new graphics format. But it seems agreeing to get started could take as long as it will take to actually do it ?
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 01:54:52 GMT

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