- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:02:08 -0400
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:25 PM Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > > Also sprach Mikko Rantalainen: > > > Saying that, I have to say that no CR state or better in 2004 said > that > > @font-face must support TTF. > > Likewise, HTML 4 doesn't say that PNG must be supported. It says: > > Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and > PNG. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG > > Still Acid2 tests PNG images on the <object> element: > > http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/guide/ > > I think such assumptions are reasonable, even if some judgement calls > must be made. > I agree that in some cases making assumptions and judgment calls are necessary and unavoidable. However, when the situation changes and the new information becomes available that voids an assumption or changes the grounds on which a judgment call has been made - it is perfectly reasonable and even desirable to revisit the subject matter and make a better judgment call. I don't understand why this is not the case here, especially taking into account the fact that the proposed change does *not* change the scope of the test, nor does it adversely affects the implementation that pass the test. Why is the resistance to the change? Sounds like a bad judgment call. Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 19:11:33 UTC