RE: RE: Next step?

Sunday, October 25, 2009 Dave Crossland dave@lab6.com:

 

>Requiring WOFF is the only path before the group that fulfils the primary need.

Dave,

As a web developer, WOFF’s primary advantage to me is built-in compression. For testing, though, I’d rather not have the hassle of converting a TTF or OTF file. It’s bad enough I have to convert to an EOT. And from a browser maker’s standpoint, linking to TTF/OTF files is simplest and most efficient. So, who’s needs are we talking about? And why must WOFF be required? Where do the hundreds of millions of IE users with working EOT code fit into this?

My proposal is to prioritize the four formats with a point system. Nothing is disparaged. Somewhere along the line in these discussions, Chris Lilley mentioned game theory. Well, if you make a table with browsers listed on the Y axis and the four formats listed on the X axis and begin to fill in the cells and play a game of, “How does IE get to 5?”, “How does Safari?”, etc... under any rational and expected scenario there is the kind of progress most of us would like to see.

There is no shame in letting the unseen hand of the market do its part of the work, too. But at least this proposal allows us to guide the outcome with something a little more prescriptive than, “Take two formats and call me in the morning.”

It at least gives some semblance of a spine to what strikes many as a startlingly limp approach to measuring compliance. This might be all that it is possible to do, given the strong beliefs of the W3C members who will ultimately make the decision on this.

Regards,

Rich

BTW – Of course I didn’t expect that you would agree me. Hell, I don’t even agree with myself! But thanks for the well-turned phrase. Even if you think I turned it too far. :-)