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

Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:10:22 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907282110k3865bfe6v72309aa3333d2c3e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Laurence Penney<lorp@lorp.org> wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2009, at 23:34, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> So your objection is rooted in 'fairness' grounds rather than anything
>> to do with the actual font format?  This doesn't seem logical - even
>> if we scrapped EOT-Lite in favor of some new format, and IE supported
>> it, you'd still need the updated @font-face support in IE and CFF
>> support in Windows.  These problems are completely orthogonal to the
>> question of format.
>
> I'm getting tired of hearing the words 'completely orthogonal'. If there's a
> great new font-related idea that can be supported in IE by a particular set
> of software engineers, then there's someone that can authorize that resource
> allocation without worrying in what dimension his knickers are twisting.

Indeed.  But whether or not those resources are allocated has nothing
to do with what format is being supported.  That's what the phrase
means, and that's why it keeps getting used - non-specific complaints
are being used against specific formats when they actually apply
universally.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 04:11:22 GMT

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