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

RE: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:59:40 -0400
To: "'John Daggett'" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005201ca15f6$820dc8c0$86295a40$@com>
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>:

>more testing, less shouting.

I'm in. On my end, I will be investigating the limitations/workarounds concerning IE6 that you've raised.
I will report back and probably post test pages, as well.

Regards,

rich



-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Daggett
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:17 AM
To: www-font
Subject: Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

Richard Fink wrote:

> 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.

There's no circle here, Richard, just ongoing concerns, concerns I had
before, concerns I have now.  I don't see this in the black and white
terms you present it, backwards compatibility is EOT-Lite's strength,
same-origin problems its weakness. If implementation problems with
existing IE versions means authors won't make use of backwards
compatibility with IE, "quick and dirty" solutions have the same result
as slightly less dirty solutions.  Rather than make assumptions we
should be testing actual usage scenarios.  This means more testing, less
shouting.
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 18:00:19 GMT

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