Re: the truth which dare not speak it's name

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:26 AM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
>> Again, I think having two formats is stupid and looks like trying to built a
>> solution around what different vested interests might possibly, grudgingly
>> agree to.
> 
> Is this a particular problem?  If one single format can't make
> everyone happy, then having two formats (both with interop) is almost
> as good.  There's nothing wrong with multiple formats as long as
> they're all supported (as has been mentioned before, images are
> supported in multiple formats on the web).

If W3 Font WG cannot come up with a single format that is acceptable to
major browser vendors and major font foundries, the W3 Font WG has not
job at all, as I see it.

The current practical solution is to provide *both* OTF and EOT variants
of every font you want to use on your web site. That *already* works
with every major browser. We don't need W3 Font WG to achieve a solution
that works when authors distribute two or more files because we already
have a solution that works with exactly two files.

However, you cannot use any font you want because you cannot license
some fonts for such usage. And that is *only* because of owner(s) of
those fonts. Not because W3 Font WG has failed to come up with another
format. Not because browser vendors are not co-operative.

I think that W3 Font WG should primarily target towards a single format
that all *browser vendors* are happy to implement. Then font foundries
will either license their fonts or not. I believe that any font that is
usable with current situation (distribute both OTF and EOT) is usable
with any (possibly third) font format that browser vendors agree to.

-- 
Mikko