- From: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:41:02 +0600
- To: www-font@w3.org
- CC: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
karsten luecke wrote: > 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. :) - Don't say anything to upset Microsoft - In the @font-face saga aren't they your man in the white hat holding out for the rights of font vendors? > Argueing with "interoperability" in respect to older application versions seems odd to me. In this case, the so-called "interoperability" seems to be just a pragmatic way of delivering a working cross-platform @font-face solution to as many users as possible within the shortest possible time. - CF > 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 11:58:23 UTC