- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:54 +0000
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> From: Levantovsky, Vladimir > I believe that the goal of the working group *is* to specify the > format(s) that hasn't been shipped yet to promote its implementation > and interoperability between browsers. Just because something didn’t > happen yet doesn't mean that it shouldn’t happen in the future - this > is exactly where the WG efforts would create most value. > To the contrary, whatever has already happened is the reality we live > with, and while the WG has to consider it in order to enable web > authors do what they need to do sooner rather than later, I don’t see > the need to simply rubberstamp any of the existing solutions unless it > promotes interoperability. Rubberstamping is precisely what I have no interest in. Interoperability in a relatively distant future should not take precedence over interoperability between now and then if it is possible, even if limited by legacy implementation issues. Not without detailed considerations of said limitations and consulting with authors, at least.
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 14:50:30 UTC