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

RE: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:51:13 -0400
To: "'Christopher Slye'" <cslye@adobe.com>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007201ca0f25$e4a42650$adec72f0$@com>
Monday, July 27, 2009 Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>:

>Any issues with CFF fonts in Win/IW/ EOT are certainly quite major in the
short term (if not longer) from  
>our perspective.

Chris,

Of course we can't travel into the past and remake IE6, etc... But I do
think we should get some assurances about what's going to be in IE/Windows
going forward. Absolutely.

Regards,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Slye
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:12 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: www-font
Subject: Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

On Jul 27, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> While Adobe does use CFF fonts (and has expressed that it has no
> interest in releasing in any other format), I believe most foundries
> distribute in TTF, at least as an option.  (I know that all or nearly
> all of the fonts on my computer are TTF.)  So any issues with CFF
> fonts are at most minor in the short term.

It's a fair point, and might call into question my characterization of  
EOT as a "niche" solution without better CFF support. But your last  
sentence is certainly not true for Adobe (and any other foundry which  
primarily makes CFF-based fonts). Any issues with CFF fonts in Win/IW/ 
EOT are certainly quite major in the short term (if not longer) from  
our perspective.

-Christopher
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 01:51:57 GMT

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