W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Including WOFF in ACID3

From: Gustavo Ferreira <gustavo.ferreira@hipertipo.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:50:04 +0200
Message-Id: <9EEDD2E3-21EE-482B-83A0-6355FEC5C246@hipertipo.net>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
I agree with Sylvain's position and support it.

TTF is not a standard web font format; WOFF is.

Acid3 is thus broken and misleading in regards to web fonts.

Håkon, please reconsider...

Thanks,
Gustavo.


PS: In case anyone needs fonts for testing cross-browser metrics and rendering -- I would be happy to provide some, or develop special ones to test specific issues.



Em 13 okt 2010, às 20:32, Sylvain Galineau escreveu:

>> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM
>> To: Sylvain Galineau
>> Cc: www-font@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Including WOFF in ACID3
>> 
>> Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:
>> 
>>> The current test loads this font as a raw TTF only. It would seem
>>> appropriate for the test to be updated with a WOFF version of the
>>> test font i.e. instead of just:
>>> 
>>> 	@font-face { font-family: "AcidAhemTest"; src: url(font.ttf); }
>>> 
>>> ...the test rule would be:
>>> 
>>> 	@font-face { font-family: "AcidAhemTest"; src: url(font.woff),
>> url(font.ttf); }
>> 
>> I don't support this change. I think there's a value to keeping things
>> stable. Errors should be corrected, but -- in general, unless there
>> are obvious reasons -- I don't think features should be added or
>> removed.
>> Aslo, by making the proposed change, it becomes possible to pass Acid3
>> without supporting ttf. We could end up in a situation where browser x
>> support ttf only and browser y support woff only, but both of them
>> pass Acid3. As a result, interoperability would suffer.
> 
> First off, I don't see why a browser that only loaded WOFF and SVG Fonts should 
> fail this part of the test. That's completely arbitrary.
> 
> Second, can you point to a standard that requires TTF support ? Claiming implicitly 
> or otherwise that not supporting TTF violates a standard is false. 
> 
>> From a standard standpoint you have agreed to the Web Fonts WG Charter [1]:
> 
> 	# WebFont conformance specification
> 	# ...[snip]... WOFF will be the required format for compliance, the others being 
> 	# optional.
> 
> Thus a browser that only supports WOFF will be conformant. Yet it will fail this part 
> of ACID3. 
> 
> WOFF is also the only web font format today with support from all browser vendors, 
> a large number of font vendors and web authors. It will likely see far more use than 
> raw fonts. (Otherwise it wouldn't have been invented in the first place...) Not 
> supporting it in ACID3 makes the latter less relevant for its users by checking for 
> support for a feature they don't use. (Granted, it's not the only one such case in the 
> test...)
> 
> Last, the current ACID3 @font-face test doesn't establish cross-browser interoperability 
> at all. IE9 passes this part of the test because Ahem is Installable. But non-installable 
> TTFs will not load in IE i.e. our passing the test doesn't establish that any TTF that loads
> in Opera will load in IE. 
> 
>> 
>> I'm happy to add WOFF to a future Acid test, though.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> -h&kon
>>              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
>> howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/WebFonts/charter.html
> 
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 19:50:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:42 UTC