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

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:14:27 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600810200514t12109ad5y49a38bf9ba76bb6d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "bert@w3.org" <bert@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  There is a way to programmatically load font resources from files,
> including the web. It does involve code though, and at that point I am not
> sure if it is possible to control where a resource is coming from and what
> is done with it.
>

Perhaps not, but in that case, FontSource should have been removed to
satisfy the "no bare TTFs" requirement, at the same time as FontFamily was
changed. I don't understand why you would restrict FontFamily and but retain
FontSource.

It seems the point of the argument is "Silverlight argument" is that
> Microsoft is against *declarative linking to bare TTF files*, while it has
> a product that implements exactly that.
>

Actually this is the first time I've seen "declarative" identified as the
crux of unacceptability. So in your view, a scriptable API to use bare TTF
files in IE would be acceptable?

But I agree with Hakon here. It can't really matter whether the client-side
functionality that induces authors to place TTF files on servers is scripted
or declarative (even if there is a solid distinction between those two,
which I doubt). If you adhere to the argument that bare TTF files on servers
devastate the font industry, then all such functionality is unacceptable.


>
> a)      Define what is the right way to do (and not to do)
>
> b)      Review existing implementations (if any) for compliance with the
> new standard/rules
>
> c)       Change non-compliant implementations if necessary
>

That sounds reasonable to me, except I can't believe Microsoft would ship a
Silverlight update that deliberately breaks deployed Silverlight 2
applications, so I doubt Microsoft's willingness to take step 3. Which
reminds me to ask, has Microsoft updated Silverlight 1, or will Silverlight
1 applications always be able to render bare TTF files?

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 20 October 2008 12:15:02 GMT

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