By '...IE9 and Firefox support it', I meant WOFF of course. > -----Original Message----- > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Sylvain Galineau > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:02 PM > To: Ian Hickson; Levantovsky, Vladimir > Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; www-font@w3.org > Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3 > > > 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 20:21:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:09 GMT