- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:44:16 -0500
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > The conformance document would be brief, would reference the font > formats in existing use (OpenType, WOFF, SVG, and EOTLite) and the > font referencing and linking specifications (in both CSS and XML > serializations), and require implementation of at least one linking > mechanism and *at least two* formats, for compliance. There appeared > to be consensus on www-font that requiring at least two formats gave a > fair and even playing field and maximized interoperability. I don't think I can agree with this; I don't believe there was any consensus of the sort. Requiring 2 of the 4 does nothing to guarantee interop - as written, I think Opera already complies, yet it doesn't support WOFF *or* CWT yet. There may have been consensus to support 2 *specific* formats - namely, WOFF and CWT - but supporting 2 from a list of 4 just gratuitously allows poor interop while claiming standards compliance. I'd prefer a requirement of WOFF and CWT support, while allowing support for further formats. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 15:45:11 UTC