MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-W3C-Scan-Sig: bart.w3.org 1N0vH6-0007aa-1e a12c31204e5d1f75c0f2e54104d1e20e X-Original-To: www-font@w3.org Subject: Re: Next step? On Thursday, October 22, 2009, 5:04:33 AM, John wrote: JH> So it seems to me that the question to ask when considering possible JH> conformance requirements is not 'What might people possibly agree to JH> based on what they've already done?' -- which seems to be the case for JH> any-2-of-4 -- but 'In what direction do we with to steer the ship on JH> which we are all travelling?' JH> I'm still waiting for the reasoning that explains how any-2-of-4 acts JH> like any kind of rudder. To continue the analogy, there is a light hand on the rudder and an appreciation for where on the shore the tides and currents are most likely to land us. Stepping back from analogy land, it seems a little premature to say "ok, everyone who implemented font linking so far: thanks, but none of your work counts unless you do this new thing". Of course, if we can indeed say that, it makes things clearer. And there is precedent for a single required format delivering good interop. CSS2 required no one format (this was in the middle of the PFR-vs-OT war) and did not get any interop in HTML/CSS implementations. SVG 1.0 required one mandatory format (and allowed others) with the result that most implementations supported it. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CGReceived on Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:52:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:52:09 GMT