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

RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:41:20 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E28070E83@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:10 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> 
> Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:
> 
>  > 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.
> 
> Interoperability for installable ttf fonts is valuable, I don't want
> to risk losing it.

Can you explain *what* interop is being lost by *adding* WOFF to the @font-face
rule ? Do you realize that interop is limited to a subset of raw fonts ?

> We could add another test for WOFF without changing the exising one?

Except a browser that only supports WOFF would fail something. I don't see why
that should be the case when this WG's conformance criteria indicate WOFF will
be the only format required for conformance. 

Can you explain on what basis you believe TTF support to be required ? 
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 19:42:01 UTC

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