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

Re: Rumours of the death of "new, professionally designed typefaces" are perhaps exaggerated?

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:50:36 -0700
To: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Ben Weiner <ben@readingtype.org.uk>
Message-Id: <1249530636.5813.12.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:57 +0600, Chris Fynn wrote:
> right now I'm hoping for
> a consensus on supporting EOT Lite (under another name of course)
> mainly
> because it will provide @font-face support to the most users in the
> least amount of time and also because a significant number of major
> commercial font vendors seem prepared to license fonts for the web in
> that format.
> 
> Of course EOTL is a compromise ~ but isn't that just what we are
> seeking
> here? EOTL support, especially in old versions of IE, will be less
> than
> perfect, but that can be lived with.

Please drop the false assumption that the name is
the only problem with EOTL.   

Let's call it the SNARGLFOO format, for sake of argument.
The SNARGLFOO format is designed so that existing EOTC
processors will render SNARGLFOO fonts.  So it is an 
extension of EOTC.  Alas, most browser makers are legally
constrained to not implement EOTC and only one browser
maker is in a position to offer a smooth integration of
SNARGLFOO and EOTC.  SNARGLFOO and EOTC are so closely
related that simple bugs and/or tolerances of slightly
ill-formed input can turn an otherwise upstanding 
SNARGLFOO processor into an unlawful EOTC processor.

Worse still, there is some nervousness that security
considerations imply fonts need same-origin+CORS protection.
If that nervousness is misplaced then, fine, cross-site linking
of fonts should be unrestricted (as it already is in some 
browsers).  On the other hand, if the nervousness is not 
misplaced, then the passage of a SNARGLFOO standard would
require the timely patching of IE<=8.  But... wait... 
if IE<=8 is to be patched, what reasons remain for the
patch to be anything other than "add TTF/OTF w/ same-orign+CORS"?

You say people can "live with" a compromise on SNARGLFOO.
Mozilla seems to hint that they can.  I wouldn't assume
that others will follow, that Moz. won't change their mind,
or that a SNARGLFOO Recommendation will get past the Director.

In contrast, it would not need to take us more than two weeks
to convene a WG and pass along a TTF/OTF recommendation, and
perhaps a few months for implementations to catch up. 

Remind me again exactly what economic difference the choice
between TTF/OTF and SNARGLFOO makes to font vendors?  (As you
argued, the answer is likely: "none".)

-t
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 03:51:19 GMT

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