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

RE: A way forward

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:51:04 +0000
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020F7D79@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of John Daggett

>As I understand it EOT-Lite boils down to a header prepended to the
>front of a font...<snip>...
You're correct.

> None of the remaining data in that header seems like it's useful...<snip>
> I don't see a why other browser vendors should bend over backwards...<snip>

Pardon the convenient snips but Tab is right. There is a glaring contradiction
here. Skipping a useless header hardly constitutes 'bending over backwards'.
All your original objections - MTX, rootstrings - have now been removed. At least some font
vendors and authors are interested and actively investigating the feasibility of the solution.
While others like Tal and Erik are designing a whole new alternative from scratch.

Apologies but 'bending over backwards' is not the first colloquialism that comes to mind to
describe Mozilla's position here. Not yet at least.

>From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of John Daggett

>Beyond the problem of loading CFF fonts, Jonathan Kew's July 3 post is a
>much better critique of the problems with EOT-Lite or "rootless EOT":


Fine. What does Mozilla propose then ? .webfont ? ZOT ? Other ? We'd prefer something
EOT-compatible - duh, even - but indicated many times we're open to alternatives
if that's what it takes, one that has the support of authors and font designers. That
position still stands. Will you participate in a Fonts WG to work this out ?
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 00:51:54 UTC

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