Re: Next step?

Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> 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. 

Sylvain, can you -- or anyone else -- please explain to me what the 
actual or perceived benefit of an 'any-2-of-4' conformance requirement 
is? I can understand that if it were impossible to come to consensus on 
any one format then such a conformance statement would make sense as a 
compromise to move things forward, but we don't appear to be in that 
situation.

I would also like to register that I personally do not like the idea of 
any browser maker being able to cite support for naked font linking *as 
conformance*. I understand that the browsers that have already chosen to 
support that format are unlikely to disable such support, but I don't 
think such support should count toward conformance. Other formats such 
as CWT might be contentious for technical or political reasons, but 
naked font linking is contentious because it puts peoples' works and 
livelihood at unrestrained risk. This is another reason why I prefer a 
single, non-contentious format as a conformance requirement and other 
formats, including naked font linking, only as options.

John Hudson

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 21:02:02 UTC