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: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:09:39 +0000
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E28071395@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:05 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Håkon Wium Lie; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> 
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >
> > Fair enough. So you have no issue with adding WOFF as proposed ?
> 
> I have an issue because Hakon has an issue. We co-author the test, so
> we
> both have to be on board for any changes.
> 
> To reiterate what I told Tab: for a change to be made to Acid3 at this
> very late stage, I would like a publicly archived e-mail co-signed by
> representatives of the five major browser vendors clearly stating the
> request, and Hakon's approval.
> 
> Frankly though I think our time might be better spent looking to the
> future than looking at old tests.

WOFF *is* the future. My time would indeed be better spent not having to 
jump through needless hoops for a trivial change to the most popular browser 
test out there so as to make it reflect implementation reality. (Until such time 
a new version supersedes it). 

It seems which formats are tested is up to 'the market' one minute, then up
to Hakon the next. That's both incoherent and arbitrary.

It also sounds like you're saying ACID3 is not that important or relevant. I don't 
disagree but our opinion have little bearing on its actual popularity. As long as 
there is no ACID4 and people run 3 I'd rather have it reflect implementation and 
standard reality to the extent possible. 

It is also possible I may be looking for reason in the wrong place. Within a few months, 
the number of web fonts that can be licensed and used in IE - as EOT or WOFF - Firefox 
and WebKit browsers will largely outnumber what can be licensed as TTF or SVG, the 
only formats supported by Opera. But Hakon is opposed to this simple and neutral change in 
the name of 'interop'. As if interop with a format that limits their choice mattered more
to authors than interop with the common standardized format that maximizes their options.

I strongly suspect none of this argument would be necessary if Opera was part of this 
particular future. Given that the proposal does not affect  the pass/fail or any browser
it certainly isn't critical to me. But it makes it all the more baffling to see it
opposed in the name of an interoperability of historical value. As if adding WOFF would 
make everyone drop TTF support. 


Thanks.
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 01:10:15 UTC

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