- From: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:45:22 +0200 (MEST)
- To: www-font@w3.org
John Daggett wrote: > I don't think any new web font format should be saddled with > legacy issues from the EOT format and Microsoft's implementation > of it. We should be striving for a simple way that all browsers > can support @font-face interoperably, not a way to make web fonts > work in IE6. And earlier: > Using a form of EOT hamstrings the interoperable use of web fonts > in a number of ways. Since no shipping version of IE supports > Postscript CFF fonts, font vendors with only these fonts in their > libraries would be at a competitive disadvantage. Nor does any > shipping version of IE support simple @font-face rule font > descriptors such as font-weight or font-style, so using bold and > italic faces in IE is awkward. This is Microsoft's problem, isn't it? :) And *if* EOT/Lite should be the choice, Microsoft better fix any issues in future IE versions, to catch up with future Firefox or Safari versions that support EOT/Lite properly. Argueing with "interoperability" in respect to older application versions seems odd to me. In the same way, Mozilla 3.5 breaks "interoperability" with earlier versions since the latter don't support @font-face. Karsten
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:57:47 UTC