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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:43:23 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <61027177C88032458A7862054B3C62580583F1@TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:
> > "Creating a new Fonts WG will steal the thunder from the current implementations."
> > I wouldn't expect you, of all people, to argue that respecting the
> > 'thunder' of current implementations should be a standardization
> > criteria. Or does that apply only when those existing
> > implementations are not Microsoft's ?
>
>It'a a fair question. However, Microsoft's EOT efforts were dormant
>when I started arguing for to revive webfonts [1]. Almost a decade
>after EOT was introduced it was all but forgotten; there was no
>thunder to steal from EOT.

Completely untrue.  EOT actually *IS* used in some markets, you know.  I know you want it to go away, but it is still there.

>This time, we have four implementations, two of which have shipped
>(Safari, Prince) and two that are close to shipping (Mozilla, Opera).
>As such, it's a crucial phase for web fonts, and chartering a new WG
>to do new technical work is disruptive to interoperability.

Håkon, I've repeatedly told you over the last several years that I don't believe Microsoft will ever implement direct TTF/OTF linking.  You've had just over three years since you wrote your CNet article to try to get TTF/OTF adoption, and I don't think Microsoft or the font vendors are any closer to thinking it's a good idea.  Your only hope for interoperability in that case would be to drive Microsoft browser share low enough to be irrelevant; though I know you'd love that, too, I think we can all admit in the cold light of day that it's unlikely to happen, and certainly not in the next five years.  Chartering a working group to develop a format that font vendors can get behind, and we could all ultimately support in UAs, seems like a very smart thing to do at this junction.

>By making a new format, you increase the risk of format fragmentation.
>If you have n formats and create a new format to replace the other
>ones, you have n + 1 formats.

Yes, but if you create one more format that EVERYONE can support, then you REDUCE the number of formats web developers have to deal with.  To precisely one.  Isn't that a good goal?

> > Please. This is not and should not be about Microsoft or any
> > individual browser vendor's own narrow interests. Interoperability
> > is yours to uphold too. Hundreds of millions of users run an
> > EOT-compatible browser. Why should they get screwed ?
>
>Are you saying that the new format must be backwards compatible
>with deployed versions of IE?

No.  I think it would be a significant benefit to web developers for the next five years to seven years or so, but after that it's probably irrelevant.

-Chris
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 22:44:05 GMT

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