W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:44:16 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2924EFC@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Hello Håkon, all,

I don't think it will come as a surprise for anyone that the existing webfonts solution isn't *truly* interoperable. Yes, we have different compliant implementation of CSS webfonts specification, but there is no true world-wide-web interoperability. The emergence of solutions like sIFR, Cufon and the most recent TypeKit announcement (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/small-batch-lands-fresh-round/) simply confirm that. 

The creation of the Fonts WG will tell the world that W3C is aware of the problem and is working on a solution. By not doing anything we'd only weaken W3C position and would tell authors that they are not going to see an interoperable W3C solution any time soon. 

One smart man presenting at the ATypI WebFonts panel in 2008 said:
"It's important to understand who is making the final decision about webfonts. It's not me. It's not the people in the panel. It's not W3C. And it's not you in the audience. The decision is made by the people out there who create web pages and style sheets. If they like what they see, webfonts will soon be changing the face of the web." Håkon, this smart man was you. 

The successful outcome of Fonts WG work will enable authors do just that.

Cheers,
Vladimir


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:59 AM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Fonts WG Charter feedback
> 
> I don't think W3C should create a Font Working Group as per the
> proposed charter:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/03/fonts-wg-charter
> 
> By creating a Working Group, W3C signals that webfonts are not yet
> ready for use, and that more technical work is necessary. This is not
> the case.
> 
> We have four interoperable implementations of webfonts: Gecko, Presto,
> Prince, Webkit.
> 
> These implementations have followed W3C Recommendations when
> implementing web fonts, and W3C should support the efforts (e.g., by
> using web fonts on their pages) rather than sending a "wait!" signal.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -h&kon
>               Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
> howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 22:44:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT