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

Re: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:03:50 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907271903j5b3f8b3fuc8b88348ee20dc61@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Keep in mind that EOT Lite is not competing with any of the other
>> formats being proposed.  It's a short-term solution that lets us hit
>> interop in the near future.  More ideal solutions can and likely will
>> replace it later on, but even in the best case this won't happen for
>> at least half a decade.
>
>
> Realistically, if EOT-Lite became broadly supported the value of
> standardizing any other format would be very low, possibly even negative.

Not any more so than existing image formats make the value of a new
format negative.  As long as the new format holds sufficient
advantages over the old, it has a chance.  PNG became a standard
against several entrenched formats due to its unique advantages (full
alpha channel), and SVG's scaling capabilities are gradually making it
more common as well.

Similarly, any new font format that can offer sufficient advantages
over EOT-Lite (native high-efficiency compression, useful metadata
support, etc.) also stands a good chance of entering the market.  And
really, if the new format *doesn't* offer useful advantages over
EOT-Lite, does it deserve to be standardized?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 02:04:52 GMT

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