- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:42:47 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:16 PM
> For example, should this code have any effect?:
>
> @font-face {
> font-family: foo;
> src: url("http://example.com/fonts/foo.eot") format("embedded-
> opentype");
> }
>
> According to the specification it's valid, according to your
> implementation it's not.
A known bug which cannot establish why you or Mozilla would need to match
this behavior. As IE does not recognize the optional format hint, authors would drop it
to make the declaration work in IE (as they already do today, in fact). The resulting
declaration will be valid and, I presume, work fine in Opera and Firefox today without
requiring either of you to do any extra work.
What here could possibly *force* you to remove support for this valid syntax ? This is
now the second example you give that has nothing to do with the actual file format served to
the client.
Unless you are saying the following: that if we did add support for raw font linking without
fixing bugs such as this one, you would in fact change your @font-face code to match IE, including
breaking when the format hint is specified ? Is that your statement ?
Why ? Why would any author need or want you to do this ? Name one author who would demand that Opera
match this bug.
Your case is looking increasingly weak, Hakon. Embarrassingly so, I'm afraid.
> Now it's your turn: how many bugs has Microsoft fixed in the EOT code
> over the last decade?
Our internal bug system indicates 65 issues were fixed in the Windows 7 cycle alone. The total over a decade larger.
However, I fail to see why this is relevant or what answer could prove your claim. I suggest you stop evading by grabbing at straws, even though I am finding it quite helpful.
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 20:43:30 UTC