- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:57:44 +0000
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Currently, browsers who do not implement WOFF and who do implement TTF > pass ACID3 tests. Changing the test so they no longer pass isn't a > good idea. That was *never* the suggestion. It has been suggested that a WOFF reference be *added* to the list of resources in ACID3's @font-face. Thus a browser that does not support WOFF would still pass the test. > Currently no browsers implements WOFF but not TTF. I don't see any > browsers cutting off the wide amount of already deployed sites using > only TTF. How wide is that ? Do you have data ? And how wide will it remain given a format supported by all browsers that is also supported by a plurality of font vendors ? > As Håkon said, interoperability for installable ttf fonts is valuable > and should be preserved. No one said it was not valuable. I do not, however, see how 'preserving' raw font interoperability should exclude encouraging WOFF interoperability. Never mind that TTF interop excludes one major browser - IE, until IE9 ships - and will thereafter be limited to installable TTFs. > It is good that WOFF is included in the ACID3 test, but not if it > *removes* ttf from the test. That was not the suggestion. > Dropping TTF from ACID4 is a different matter. Why ?
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 19:58:18 UTC