- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:02:13 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] > Note that @font-face is just as optional as TTF or WOFF support, or, > indeed, CSS support, or HTML support. Browser vendors pick what they > want > to implement. No technology can be mandated; it's a free market. All we > can do is check that once you try to support a technology, you actually > do > so in a manner that is consistent with that technology's specification. > You cannot mandate that WOFF be implemented. The market decides that. No more than you can mandate that TTF be implemented. The market decides that as well. So why should one be tested and not the other ? It only reflects the fact that TTF support was all there was at the time ACID3 was released. A few years later, IE9 and Firefox support it. The WebKit browsers are working on it and I'm comfortable assuming Opera will as well. Not only has the market decided but the more relevant part of the market - the people who license fonts - are largely in favor of WOFF. So I don't quite understand how that is an argument to leave WOFF out.
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 20:02:47 UTC