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: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:02 -0700
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1246557182.6767.48.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 17:33 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:

> Unless there is some other reasoning that
> hasn't been introduced into this argument
> (say, that would sway the font vendors), 
> I think you can consider that the view of
> Microsoft is that TTF/OTF linking is the
> wrong solution to enabling fonts on the web,
> and Microsoft would prefer that a group 
> including font vendors, web designers, and 
> user agent implementers work together to 
> come up with a solution that respects the needs
> of all (including the needs that EOT did not
> meet for the other browser vendors, BTW).


Chris, 

Will you please comment on why a three-format
solution is not acceptable to the font vendors
and Microsoft?  I can't fathom it.

By a "three-format" solution I mean a requirement
to support OTF, TTF, and some new format.  We can
discuss the requirements for the new format separately.

A three-format solution would allow vendors to say
that none of their fonts are licensed for use on the
web in TTF or OTF, only the new format.   Meanwhile,
other font makers whose tools already use TTF or OTF
would be well supported and the useful degree of interop
with legacy desktop applications would be preserved.

-t
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 17:53:43 GMT

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