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

RE: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:03:08 -0400
To: <robert@ocallahan.org>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
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>
Message-ID: <007b01ca0f38$537c22f0$fa7468d0$@com>
Tue, Jul 28, 2009 Robert Callahan Robert@callahan.org:

 

>Realistically, if EOT-Lite became broadly supported the value of standardizing any other format would be very low, possibly even negative.

 

Rob,

 

I was looking for counter arguments against EOT-lite a few weeks ago and the same idea occurred to me. I knew someone would bring it up! Very legitimate concern it is, too. First, I echo what Tab said about this. Plus, if we start shying away from incremental improvements out of fear that they might lead to complacency and therefore slow an improved solution down the road, we’ve scared ourselves into inaction on everything, haven’t we?

We need a web fonts solution for the future formulated now. I certainly don’t feel like EOT takes the pressure off. And I think there’s a shared sense of expectations among all concerned that will prevent such complacency. The bar is set higher these days. I would have been more worried about it four or five years ago. And the rise of FireFox actually has a lot to do with that, now that I think about it.

All concerned understand that EOT  lite would be an interim step: the product of a set of facts on the ground (the existing IE user base) and the fortunate fact that EOT was malleable enough to conform to today’s expectations regarding root strings and obfuscation.

I, for one, will be watch-dogging it as some sort of .webfont/ZOT/whatever gets specified and, ultimately, implemented. We can’t afford to settle for less.

That’s the best answer I’ve got. Boils down to mostly faith, I guess.

 

Regards,

 

rich




 

From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 7:52 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: John Hudson; Erik van Blokland; Håkon Wium Lie; Tal Leming; www-font
Subject: Re: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata

 

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.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 04:04:09 GMT

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