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: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:31:56 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <61027177C88032458A7862054B3C6258059954@TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
It includes supporting TTF/OTF, which I think is irresponsible, and it's redundant, since any font you could use with TTF you could use with another format.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:08 PM
To: Chris Wilson
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; Sylvain Galineau; www-font@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>In all the discussion, I can't recall this specific question being
>>asked, so I'll ask it: What exactly is the problem with supporting
>>TTF/OTF *and* another format?
>
> My problem is with supporting TTF/OTF period; of course, I don't demand that some other system remove their support, but I find it inherently limited and would prefer to have one format that makes it easy for all fonts.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't quite answer my question.  What is *wrong*
with supporting both TTF/OTF and another format?

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:32:39 GMT

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