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

RE: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:25:04 -0400
To: "'John Daggett'" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002001ca157c$545e13a0$fd1a3ae0$@com>
Tuesday, August 04, 2009 John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>:

Love the test pages. (But a reminder that no amount of them will change the facts on the ground.)

John Daggett wrote:

>My other concern is whether EOT-Lite is really going to be
>interoperable or not with <= IE8.  I haven't really done enough
>testing yet but the few tests that I've done makes me wonder how solid
>@font-face support is in IE.  IE6 only supports loading a single font
>per family name, so to support IE6 authors will need to use
>IE6-specific styles.

John,

It seems we've been through this before and circled back. We know IE <= IE8 requires kid gloves. We know it isn't "interoperable" in the same sense that a brand new format would be. I'll say it plainly: It would be one more quick and dirty solution for a medium that was built on them and is still being built on them. So what? Seamless "interoperability" is not EOTL's main virtue.
I await the testing In IE6 of which you speak. Partly, because it has a large bearing on what we can expect from the "font services" companies. If @font-face in IE6 is badly flawed, none of those folks has, as yet, brought it up. I think they would be good people to ask about this, actually.

>If authors conclude that using @font-face in IE is too flakey or
>cumbersome and instead opt for a mixture of @font-face in non-IE
>browsers and image replacement techniques in IE, then the key
>advantage of EOT-Lite is lost.

And this will be determined how?

>Others seem to view EOT-Lite as a stepping stone format that would be
>followed by a better .webfont/ZOT/something-else format.  But another
>new format would need to offer a big marginal advantage to offset the
>disruption supporting yet another format would cause.

Here, too, it seems we've traveled in a circle. (Good Lord!) A previous post by Roc brought up the same point but in different words. Your words are plainer. And seem closer to suggesting that it's perfectly OK to permit a problem to go on needlessly for a greater gain down the road. Far down the road. And not strictly in the matter before us, either, but as a matter of policy. And who defines this gain for which we shall endure? You?
Back to the matter at hand: your words seem to suggest a fear that EOTL will be "too good". So what?


>Clearly the ideal is to have one format that font vendors are
>comfortable with and that authors find convenient, dependable and easy
>to use.  How much EOT-Lite or a new format deviates from this ideal
>requires more testing.

Last year the ideal was to support linking to raw font files. (Which you know I'm glad you did.) New year, new ideals, I guess. I don't think webdevs find having one licensable font format any more ideal than they do having one compressed bitmap format.
I don't think they want your ideals, John. Just your programming prowess. And they want results.
Me, I want a format that's reaches the most users in least amount of time. Betcha I'm in the majority.

Regards,

rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Daggett
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:06 PM
To: www-font
Subject: Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

> > Just to be clear, I'm still not convinced that EOT-Lite is the way
> > to go.  But each proposal should be given due consideration and
> > it's much easier to consider clearly laid out proposals than lots
> > of hypothetical what-if's and Lordisms.
> 
> Most definitely agree on the latter. Regarding the former, do you
> mind summarizing your outstanding concerns ? I've gathered you're
> not convinced this is enough for font vendors. Like Roc, the ability
> to enforce same-origin on legacy IE may be a bother. What else ?

My other concern is whether EOT-Lite is really going to be
interoperable or not with <= IE8.  I haven't really done enough
testing yet but the few tests that I've done makes me wonder how solid
@font-face support is in IE.  IE6 only supports loading a single font
per family name, so to support IE6 authors will need to use
IE6-specific styles.

If authors conclude that using @font-face in IE is too flakey or
cumbersome and instead opt for a mixture of @font-face in non-IE
browsers and image replacement techniques in IE, then the key
advantage of EOT-Lite is lost.

Others seem to view EOT-Lite as a stepping stone format that would be
followed by a better .webfont/ZOT/something-else format.  But another
new format would need to offer a big marginal advantage to offset the
disruption supporting yet another format would cause.

Clearly the ideal is to have one format that font vendors are
comfortable with and that authors find convenient, dependable and easy
to use.  How much EOT-Lite or a new format deviates from this ideal
requires more testing.
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 03:25:46 GMT

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