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

RE: .webfont Proposal 2

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:06:13 +0000
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020CCB7E@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bert Bos [mailto:bert@w3.org]

>It seems to me we can postpone discussing the outer level format.

Bert, that is what I originally suggested. Serialization is the least important
aspect of this. But if one is going to make a case for a feature change, then they should
be able to clearly establish the use-cases for it, the pros/cons where this one is better
than that one, demonstrate examples and/or show existing applications where these benefits are
apparent (or alternatively, known relevant issues the alternative that would be fixed by their
proposed solution). I do not believe such requests to be unreasonable. As I'm
perfectly fine with the current solution and nothing has been proven wrong with it, I don't
see a need for any more discussion on that topic.

And for the record, I am not fighting. I have asked a number of straightforward questions regarding a
number of assertions that were repeatedly made - e.g. for specific real-world examples and/or standards -
and received nothing but rude evasion and angry arm-waving in return; I was also told twice that
this suggestion was so self-evidently correct that it was up to me to prove it was not. Which I find
unacceptable and take as clear evidence the proposal was neither serious nor made in good faith.

That was, however, clear pretty early on so my bad for belaboring the point.
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 14:07:06 GMT

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