- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:36:42 +0000
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of John Hudson > I think it is selling WOFF short to presume at this stage that the > conformance requirement should be 'any-2-of-4'. At the very least, the > consensus potential of WOFF should be seriously explored by the browser > makers, such that we have the possibility of defining a single required > format for conformance, which doesn't prevent any number of optional > formats being supported or, indeed, a 'WOFF-plus-one' conformance > requirement (although I really don't see the benefit of that). No one is selling any format short. And if it's not contentious then 2 of 4 should not be an issue, especially when everyone already supports at least one before they even support WOFF. If we all agree on WOFF, we will all support at least two. Given, I'd consider a Font WG to be a strong signal of a consensus to explore this.
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:37:19 UTC