W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback -- iNDIFFERENT OBSERVATION

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:17:21 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0907010117vdbdc17bufad09b3500644510@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> As an author, as long as raw TTF/OTF is *a* required format, I'm
> *enormously* more flexible on what other formats may exist.  *One*
> common format will at least put us at a good interop level, even if
> many fonts aren't legally usable under it yet, and then we can have
> all the knockdown-dragout fights we want over which new technology to
> implement.

I'm no longer representing a type foundry, but I can predict how most
of them will react....

Having raw TTF/OTF as a required format is only of any interest if
some more foundry-friendly format is also a required format.
Otherwise, they are $c&!'ed.

Maybe that was at the root of Sylvain's last question to Håkon.

Cheers,

T
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 08:18:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT