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

RE: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:39:00 +0000
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02110DFC@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of John Daggett


> Hopefully this message reaches Sylvain on a chamomile tea day
> rather than a triple venti day.

Hey now :) "For relaxing times, make it Suntory time..."

I agree with you. Our @font-face implementation must be fixed and Windows
must do a better job support CFF fonts. No argument.

> I would care less about supporting EOT-Lite if
> Microsoft was committing to supporting @font-face and CFF fonts better.

Well, if it would make you care less, that's not going to make us touch it !
Allow me to be my slow self and replay this: you'd be much more comfortable
supporting EOTL if we publicly committed to addressing both issues, and to do
so by the time IE9 ships at the latest, with, I think an emphasis on addressing
CFF issues earlier.

Am I getting this right ?
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 23:49:09 GMT

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