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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:05:25 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907091005q69bfd864h94c8d29a088bb1fa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Mikko
Rantalainen<mikko.rantalainen@peda.net> wrote:
> 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.

You are confusing the current 2-format situation with the desired
future 2-format situation.

As you note, currently we have 2 formats because one browser supports
one format, and other support another.  Neither format has interop, so
we are forced to deploy *both* to have adequate coverage.

In this ideal future, both formats are supported by everything, so we
can deploy *either*, depending on which is more convenient or
otherwise acceptable.  There's a big difference between "both" and
"either".  It's exactly analogous to the current situation with image
formats, where we have 4 or so formats that everyone supports, so you
can deploy your images using your choice of the formats, depending on
which is best for your current situation.

> 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.

I agree, but hey, if we can also get a format that makes at least
several font foundries happy, all the better.

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 17:06:20 UTC

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