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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:25:36 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF292507D@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-font@w3.org>
What about compression part? As Tab Atkins clearly pointed out, the compressed format provides real benefits for web authors, and we know (and you Håkon also confirmed it) that from user experience viewpoint reducing the dataset to be transmitted to UA is important.
In the end, I don't have a particular preference what compression we end up using - any compression is better than none, and we have many good options to choose from, including MTX, LZMA and most recent ZOT proposal from Jonathan.

Vladimir

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 2:36 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback
> 
> Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:
> 
>  > > - the new font encoding is just that: a thin
>  > >   wrapper/obfuscation/compression layer on top of the current
> TT/OT
>  > >   format; there should be no new data for browsers to deal with
> 
>  > So you're comfortable with Ascender's proposal(s) ?
> 
> Given commitment from MS to do TT/OT, I can live with this proposal:
> 
>   http://blog.fontembedding.com/post/2009/06/10/New-Web-Fonts-
> Proposal.aspx
> 
> This is the trickiest part:
> 
>   License information: The 'License Description' field in a
>   TrueType/OpenType font can be used to describe how the font can be
>   used. Font Vendors could also add information about the specific
>   licensee if desired. The 'PERM' table proposed by David Berlow could
>   also be added to fonts to specifically address the license
>   permissions which the font vendor grants to its customers. Ascender
>   supports either option. The effect of either option is to allow
>   users and font vendors to better control how the font files are
>   deployed, and importantly, will help communicate the need to obtain
>   a license for a commercial font for web use. Enforcement would be
>   the responsibility of the font vendor and not the browser or
>   authoring tool, although font vendors would greatly appreciate any
>   support offered by browsers in communicating the need to obtain
>   licenses.
> 
> Assuming that the last sentence comes out loud and clear, I think it
> will be ok. That is, there will be no new data for browsers to deal
> with.
> 
> So, we have a deal?
> 
> -h&kon
>               Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
> howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 20:26:07 GMT

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