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 16:33:00 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF292507F@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: <www-font@w3.org>
In my experience, any optional part of the spec immediately introduces interoperability issue. If we want to enable compression as an option for web authors to choose - all UA implementations must support it, otherwise it's not really an option.

Vladimir


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:29 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Håkon Wium Lie
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> 
> > What about compression part?
> However the compression is done, I would not expect it to be
> controversial as long as it's optional.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 20:33:35 GMT

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