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

Re: cutting to the chase

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 22:15:25 -0700
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <1249276525.6784.102.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
John, I think you are conflating two concepts
that are usefully kept separate.

One concept is that UAs ought to be technologically
capable of handling TTF/OTF fonts.

The other concept is that there ought to be some
other, yet unidentified format.  In this second
format, some otherwise reluctant font vendors might
be willing to permit web use of their fonts while
continuing to forbid TTF/OTF of their fonts on
the web.

I think if you look at the facts on the ground,
you'll see that many us (even I!) have a desire
for that second format.  It may yet come around - 
in another few years, after many thousand more 
exchanges (at this rate).  And I think you'll see
that nobody has the slightest *substantive* objection
to the TTF/OTF support that already exists in 
most browsers.

Nothing in sanctifying TTF/OTF *tomorrow* as a 
a Recommendation precludes, in the future, bringing
forward that second format.  Nothing about the discussion
of that second format suggests agreement around it
is forthcoming anytime soon, if ever.  Separate concerns.

-t



On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 20:48 -0700, John Hudson wrote:
> Thomas Lord wrote:
> 
> > TTF/OTF is widely implemented and used.
> 
> It is reasonably widely implemented. It is hardly used at all.
> 
> EOT is more widely implemented, in terms of the number of active 
> browsers being used, and probably still more widely used in terms of the 
> number of sites making use of EOTs (especially in countries whose 
> scripts have not been well-supported by the availability of 'web safe' 
> fonts).
> 
> I don't consider any of these facts to indicate a 'rough consensus' on 
> EOT, any more than the fact that some other browsers have implemented 
> naked font linking represents any kind of consensus on that technology.
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand what the word consensus means.
> 
> There is no consensus on naked font linking and there is no consensus on 
> EOT, because both these formats are rejected outright by major stakeholders.
> 
> The only consensus building I see taking place is toward defining an 
> interoperable format that is agreeable to all the stakeholders (which is 
> what consensus implies: not trying to force a political showdown by 
> hijacking a standards process, as you suggest). I see people discussing 
> technical questions around such a format, garnering support for ideas, 
> rejecting other ideas because they block consensus: all the things that 
> I usually associate with consensus building. It takes time, and it 
> should take time.
> 
> When someone says that they want to 'cut to the chase', that pretty 
> reliably indicates that they realise that their favoured solution is 
> losing out to the consensus options, and they want to strong-arm the 
> process to get their way. The fact that almost no one among the actual 
> stakeholders has even mentioned naked font linking at all in the past 
> couple of weeks reinforces this impression.
> 
> JH
> 
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 05:16:07 GMT

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