- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:15:40 -0400
- To: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:06 PM John Daggett wrote: > > 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. > I think it would be fair to say that no matter how hard we try to predict and remedy any and all possible pitfalls of one font format or another and come up with an ideal solution, the most valuable, real-life feedback will come only from authors and only after @font-face is widely adopted on many different websites supporting multiple browsers. Authors' feedback will be the most critical component to consider when a new, better ".webfont/ZOT/something-else format" is deployed. This is why I believe it is crucial to enable authors to use @font-face and provide them with an interoperable solution as soon as possible. EOTL (or whatever name we decide to use) is clearly capable to enable the interoperability in shortest possible time, and at the small cost. Vladimir
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 16:16:21 UTC