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

Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite (was: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata)

From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:04:36 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <3A14149F-F058-473F-9EB6-9927146535E4@adobe.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>

On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>> In the meantime, those who want to continue discussing the merits and
>> deficiencies of EOT Lite should do so.
>
> I look forward to hearing about the real merits or deficiencies of  
> Ascender's proposal, preferably based on evidence and use-cases.  
> Some of the perceived or made-up ones that have been brought up  
> before are not worth any further consideration.

One of the professed advantages of EOT Lite is its existing "installed  
base" (i.e. Internet Explorer). However, for those who are more  
interested in CFF-EOT fonts, there are significant and well-known  
deficiencies in the Windows/IE platform. Acknowledging that these  
deficiencies are bugs and/or "should be fixed" is something, but  
obviously it is more valuable to know that they *will* be fixed soon  
(to the extent that they can be fixed at all).

Win/IE's problems with CFF are relevant for any web font format (or  
raw fonts, for that matter), but it seems obvious that MS is going to  
have to "walk the walk" if it wants to see EOT be more than a niche  
solution. I think Ascender has done MS a great favor by giving EOT a  
second wind as EOT Lite, but it's DOA if the CFF issues persist.

Sylvain, what do you think? I've already heard both optimistic and  
pessimistic assessments of this situation, and I'm looking for some  
reason to trust the former.

Regards,
Christopher
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 22:05:58 GMT

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