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 22:25:08 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF292508F@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
On Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:20 PM Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Levantovsky,
> Vladimir<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
> > I share both of your views on this. I think that compression is going
> to
> > be the most valuable component of the new web font format, providing
> > benefits for both authors and users.
> I think the most valuable component will be the fact that it's
> actually supported by everyone.  Font-specific compression is a
> reasonable idea -- we don't require generic compression for images or
> videos, now, do we? -- but IMO it would be best to get
> interoperability first, and think about further enhancements later.
> There's no sense in sidetracking the discussion with compression
> before we have *complete* agreement on the much more divisive aspects
> of the wrapper format (what sort of anti-piracy measures? bare font
> linking also supported?).  gzip isn't optimal, but it's good enough
> for a start.

Absolutely agree. The universal support and 100% interoperability is the paramount of this effort. My comment was related to a particular feature of this future web font format, but I agree - we are not there yet.


Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 02:25:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC