Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Your "compromise" still includes the one "feature" that we (and font vendors) have said isn't acceptable - direct TTF/OTF linking.

Both Sylvain Galineau (from you) and Vladimir Levantovsky (from font
vendors) seem to think that direct TTF/OTF linking would be worth
consideration as long as a format more palatable to the font vendors
is universally supported too.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> I don't see much benefit in having a font format whose only difference
> from TTF is such that it doesn't work in Windows, but that is otherwise
> identical (working on Linux and Mac, having exactly the same features as
> TTF, and working exactly like TTF would in all browsers except IE).

The benefit is a format everyone is willing to support, so authors
don't have to provide two font formats.  As I believe you yourself
have said elsewhere even within the past couple of days, a standard
that implementers won't implement isn't useful, regardless of their
reasons.