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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:41:52 -0700
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1246480912.6330.8.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 20:35 +0200, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> 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:

> [....]
> 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?


I'm unclear as the rationale for a new format defined
as the same as an old format but with some tables renamed.
It appears that the rationale is "break interop" in some
cases.

What is your view about that?

Compression, it appears, can be handled at a different
layer entirely - no new format needed.

Novel metadata is a good idea but I see no rationale
for doing that in a media-specific way nor for the 
particular forms of metadata proposed here.  I also see
that the proposal is weak in containing no (in fact
negative) provisions obligating UAs to make the new 
metadata available to the users to whom it is presumably
addressed.  (Hence my wrapper notion, of course.)

So, again, what is the rationale for font format proliferation
here?

-t
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 20:42:34 GMT

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