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 15:07:13 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1246486033.6330.20.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 21:02 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> 
> > 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?
> Break 'interop' with what ? And for whom ? 


You asked and in a later message answered yourself.
To quote you, in response to Ian Hickson:

>> Wouldn't operating systems just build support
>> in for these fonts, making the entire exercise
>> pointless? [....]

> My employer would be unlikely to do so given
> its stance on the matter. But yes,
> native OS support for this font encoding may
> bring us back to square one on that platform.




> Again, our goal is to maximize author choice

Apparently your goal is to make sure that drag and drop
becomes broken.


> i.e. you should not be limited to using either
> free fonts or commercial fonts. Technically,
> no such limitation exists. But major font vendors
> do not wish to license fonts for web use
> in their raw format (meaning, with no encoding).

Indeed they do not.  And I fully respect their
goal in that regard.  We differ on what it implies.

I do not think that the position of the font 
vendors provides a reasonable rationale for 
font format proliferation whose primary purpose
is to break inter-op.   Rather, any new format ought
to make a positive contribution to the architecture
of the web.

The wrapper proposal I made is technically quite
simple, *happens to* satisfy the inter-op goals of
a few, but *makes a significant positive contribution*
to the functionality offered by web standards accomplished
in a very reasonable way.   



> Specifically, they want web font files to incompatible
> with those in your system's font folder; 

Why were you asking "break interop with what" and so
forth?  You seem to know perfectly well what you are
proposing.


> So the intent is indeed to 'break compatibility'
> between the commercial font files that came with
> your OS and those served to you a browser (if
> the font vendor so chooses, of course). 

Why should anyone else in the world agree to 
complicate all those *other* programs for the 
sake of a new format which accomplishes nothing
more worth doing than what you have just described?

Who made you folks "more equal than others"?


> The prize is interoperability across all browsers.

That is extortion.

> Per Hakon's proposal, all browsers would support
> both raw font linking and a lightweight encoded
> font format aimed at commercial font vendors. 

Yes, I object to his proposal.  I agree with him
that raw OT and TT support should be required.
I agree with him that a novel format in addition
is not too high a price to pay but unlike him, I
would say that the new format must accomplish something
more useful than satisfying an unreasonable demand
for gratuitous incompatibility.


> If we achieved this, we would achieve more interop
> than we have today, not less.

Do you not see how you contradict yourself?

Thanks,
-t
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 22:07:54 GMT

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