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

EOT/TTF : Struggle for the life ?!

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:56:09 +0200
Message-ID: <F5F464D36DB74463A705E0722EE44630@FREMYCOMPANY>
To: "Patrick Garies" <pgaries@fastmail.us>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "W3C Font WG" <www-font@w3.org>
From: "Patrick Garies" <pgaries@fastmail.us>
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>  So, let's talk details.
> 
> It seems that the positions are:
> Microsoft: No OTF/TTF; Yes EOT or "EOT Lite"
> Mozilla: Yes OTF/TTF; No EOT or "EOT Lite"
> Apple/WebKit: Yes OTF/TTF(; No EOT or "EOT Lite"?)
> Opera: Yes OTF/TTF(; No EOT or "EOT Lite"?)
> 
> So we have three vendors in favor of OTF/TTF with Mozilla, at least, 
> insisting that it be available. We have Microsoft having the opposite 
> position that OTF/TTF should *not* be available on the Web while 
> supporting their existing format, EOT or an EOT-compatible derivative.
>
> If Mozilla, Apple, and Opera implement EOT, that essentially kills 
> OTF/TTF on the Web since Microsoft will have no incentive or interest to 
> implement it. On the other hand, if Microsoft implements OTF/TTF, that 
> will effectively kill EOT for the same reasons.

Is that a problem ? Why is this format so important. It's non 
compressed and does'nt seem to be a good format for font 
creators, as webmasters could publish on the web licensend 
fonts without even knowing it. 

Another thing I don't understand : Why is that not possible to 
have BOTH formats ? Sorry, but this story is completely mad 
at my eyes.
 
We are not on a battle field, we're in a working group that discuss 
"INTER-OPERABILITY". 

Do you think it would be intelligent if Microsoft sponsored 
JPEG because it allows compressed photos and other vendors 
sponsored PNG because it allows transprency, and no one of 
the two would implement the format sponsored by the other ?

It seems me that we're encountering a similar problem, 
here. It's domagable that no simple compromise can be 
found on formats. 60% of the market is sponsoring one 
format, 40% the other, so all browsers need to implements
the two. 

JPEG and PNG coexists on the web. EOT and OTF can too.
 
> That seems to kill any chance of EOT being implemented elsewhere; I 
> don't see how you can reconcile those positions without other vendors 
> giving in to Microsoft (and saying RIP to OTF/TTF) or Microsoft giving 
> in to the other vendors (where they might be able to get a concession 
> for OTF/TTF/EOT).

And why could we not find a compromise like : Microsoft 
and Others understand that both formats have pro and cons 
and that both should be implemented ? Do you think that 
browser implements are too self-centered to be able of this ?

> The only other compromise left seems to be to create a new format and 
> have all the vendors agree to that, but I've seen very little discussion 
> on OTW or other new formats essentially meaning that this group has made 
> pretty much no progress so far.
> 
> Mozilla has stated the most willingness to implement another format, it 
> looks like, but that's kind of useless without commitment from Microsoft 
> since Microsoft is the party central to the issue here.

Do you think web designer are happy to see you consider 
that using fonts on the web could not be done until 5-7 years ? 
As web master, I can trust you I'm not happy with that.

That you want another format, why not. That you don't want to 
implement existing formats, I can't accept it. 

And the same remark is also valuable for Microsoft. I understand 
Microsoft's arguments, but they are no more valuable since other 
browsers don't offer the 'protection' they want to give to font 
authors. It's too late. Now, we need compatibility.

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>  First, are there any legal issues preventing any of the other
>>  browsers (particularly Firefox with its GPL obligations) from
>>  implementing EOT? I don't believe there is any, but I want to make
>>  absolutely sure.
> 
> I believe someone mentioned wanting to see the patent license while the 
> patent holder refuses to incur expenses for writing such a license until 
> someone commits to implementing EOT. So, presumably, that depends on 
> what the as-of-yet unwritten license says.
> 
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>  Second, according to some remarks by Chris Wilson, an EOT font with
>>  no rootstring should work fine in legacy IEs.  A no-rootstring EOT
>>  seems to be a very basic obfuscation proposal, which is at least
>>  somewhat accepted among the current players.  Is this true?
> 
> Could you kindly show me where this is "somewhat accepted among the 
> current players" (i.e., browser vendors excluding Microsoft)? 
> Unfortunately, I think I missed those messages.
> 
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>  Third, can we add same-origin restrictions to EOT?  These obviously
>>  wouldn't do anything with legacy IE versions, but it *would* be
>>  interoperable with all new versions of all browsers.
> 
> Doesn't this create another one of those situations where the browser 
> that ignores the standard renders things "better" resulting in the 
> non-compliant browser gaining more market share (and hence why certain 
> vendors have refused to implement certain standards)? This is more 
> interesting considering Microsoft's Compatibility View, which, 
> presumably, would render the page without these restrictions (and, thus, 
> "better") even if Microsoft committed to implementing it in a later version.

And if I use width: 100% and then having padding due to another 
style rule that I was not aware of ? 

Would I not get better result in IE 6 ? On other browsers, the padding 
would make the page disformed, while IE 6 will do what I expected. 
This is not because I've better result that it's the good implementation...

And it's not because I get better result with a bad implementation that
no one should implement the "good" behavior.

> — Patrick Garies
>

Sorry if this post seems agressive but I get bored with this useless 
discussion over the font formats that seems to make everyone 
wasting its time. If UA implementors had implemented the "missing" 
format since the begining of the discussion the problem  would already 
be solved.
 
To make it clear : I'm not a UA Implementors, I don't bother which format
is implemented, I have lots of brower installed on my computer, where I
test the sites I publish, and what I just want is what every webmaster want.
Something that works well and that works everywhere...

Regards,
Fremy
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 09:56:46 GMT

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