W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2008

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:10:36 -0700
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "bert@w3.org" <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8756A508-9AFC-409C-BAA8-C5052BCB328F@gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>


On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:08 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I share Robert's concern that Bert appears to have already decided  
> in favor of EOT. For most of the critiques of EOT that the summary  
> presents, the critique itself is stated as the position of others  
> ("Some implementers expressed fear...", "Another critique...", "Many  
> people classify...", "Microsoft's competitors naturally claimed")  
> but presents rebuttals to these criticisms in authorial voice as  
> statements of fact. I don't see any way to interpret this but that  
> the author of the document has taken sides.

Yes, I got that impression too. Especially with the dismissive tone of  
the rebuttals, and how many of them relied on vaporware-like promises  
that are fairly typical of a Microsoftian response to Apple-led  
innovations already in the market: "adding a URL to the EOT format  
would not be very difficult", "It seems not difficult to extend EOT to  
use the same mechanism as OpenType", "discuss if EOT should be  
extensible". If EOT is important, and if it is so easy to address EOT  
shortcomings, then why hasn't MS done anything about it in the last 10  
years or so that its been around?
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 15:11:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT