- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:23:19 +0200
- To: Ben Weiner <ben@readingtype.org.uk>
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 22, 2009, 12:53:15 PM, Ben wrote: BW> Hi, BW> John Hudson wrote: >> But requiring more than one format for conformance seems to me to also >> put an unnecessary burden on new entrants in the browser market. Let's >> say a company comes along with a new browser, in a situation in which >> WOFF is the uncontested favoured format for web fonts, is supported in >> all existing browsers and is the chosen format for both web authors >> and font vendors. What good reason would there be for requiring that >> company to code support for some other format in order to be able to >> claim conformance? BW> Surely it will support OpenType etc when using local fonts? Yes, most likely, on all but very constrained platforms. The benefit of EOT, CWT and WOFF is that, once downloaded and decoded, existing platform OpenType support can typically be used to render with them. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 11:23:30 UTC