- From: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:50:45 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Mar 30, 2012, at 7:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com> wrote: >> On Mar 30, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> Raph, presuming that this new compression method is judged worthwhile -- >>>> which seems likely --, how do you see it progressing? Is this something that >>>> you hope to be adopted by W3C as e.g. WOFF 2.0? >>> >>> Yes, that's the goal we're hoping for! >> >> Are you concerned that this will give WOFF, "the interoperable webfont wrapper", interoperability problems? > > WOFF is interoperable because all the browsers agreed to implement it. I have a faint recollection of how that all went down. ;-) > Our hope is that this proposal is good enough to get the same > treatment. What I mean is, I'm wondering about web authors having to deploy multiple WOFF versions of the same font to cover all browsers that support WOFF. Obviously WOFF 1.0 would hopefully still be supported so they could always use that. But, if they want the smaller files and they want to target older browsers, we're back to deploying multiple resources in a convoluted way. Don't get me wrong. Smaller files is a great goal and the early drafts that Raph sent were very interesting. I just want to make sure that some thought has been given to avoiding creating the problem that we set out to solve in the first place. Tal
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 23:51:12 UTC