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

Re: Webfont compression

From: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:41:02 +0600
Message-ID: <4A684C4E.7090305@gmx.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT