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 05:12:21 +0000
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020F7E61@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]

>If all browser vendors are going to make the effort to support a new
>format it should be one that behaves consistently across browsers and
>supports all forms of OpenType fonts.  Supporting some form of EOT
>produces inconsistent behavior, it limits what can go into the
>standard in order to fit the behavior of older versions of IE.

Wait. Where did anyone say you had to conform with IE's legacy bugs and limitations ?
Who said the standard had to conform to legacy IE ? Accepting font files with an EOT
header does not mean acting like IE6. We're the ones who will have to bend over backwards
to plug the gap around @font-face, file types etc. Like we did with CSS2.1. That's
our burden, not yours.

If the standard ends up saying IE is missing features, we're the ones who have to
catch up. Surely you don't object to that ?

In the meantime, there would be a useful amount of cross-browser interop for TTFs.
I'd rather have that than nothing at all. So do a lot of people, apparently.

Incidentally, it would be very helpful if you could summarize all your objections
in one place, so it doesn't feel like a drip-feed of the next issue as soon as the
last obstacles are removed.

>This is just what Jonathan Kew pointed out [1].  For example, older
>versions of IE don't support same-origin restrictions so cross-site
>font linking would work with these versions but wouldn't work with
>browsers supporting same-origin restrictions.

You're absolutely correct. But whether that is acceptable is really up to
font vendors. WebKit does not implement same-origin restrictions either afaik
yet that did not stop you from being incompatible with them so I don't see why
the same issue should suddenly be this great hurdle that puts a burden
on everyone as soon as IE is involved. This is an issue we all have to find
agreement on today. Laying it at the feet of legacy IE releases
may be very convenient, but it's totally unhelpful imo.

>Conversely, EOT root strings would still work in older versions of IE
>but not in other >browsers.

This is already true today since you do not support EOT :) But as EOT-Lite
files will not have rootstrings, and as the proposal involves *rejecting*
those files with the EOT extension that do have a rootstring value, I again
fail to see what the burden on you would be here.

>Great.  As I mentioned previously, both .webfont and ZOT seem
>fine to me but it needs to be a format that other browser vendors also
>agree upon.  My only concern with .webfont was that font vendors were
>endorsing .webfont because it appeared to have root strings but the
>latest version makes it clear that it doesn't.

I'm glad we agree it's not just about browser vendors. So you would join a
Fonts WG provides :
1. It standardizes .webfont or ZOT; no rootstrings;
2. Other browser vendors are involved ? Which ? Microsoft ? Opera ? Apple ? All ?
3. A plurality of font vendors are comfortable with the proposal. We agree on that.

Is that fair ?

I'd add font vendors should be involved. I think web authors should be represented as well.
Given the results so far, the venue should not be limited to browser vendors. We've established
that will go nowhere. What will it take to have you participate ?

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 05:13:07 GMT

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