- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 18:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Vlad, > Subclause 4.1 and 4.3: Examples 8 & 9 (nitpick) - Considering that > WOFF format is now a W3C Recommendation and is widely supported, > would it be better to use '.woff' as a default example (here and > elsewhere) of a downloadable font? The use of '.ttf' fonts as > examples may be seen as recommended usage by some folks, I'd rather > change that perception by using '.woff' for spec examples. The > "Example 9" in subclause 4.3 deserves a special attention, where > '.eot' is used as an example of source definition for use "with > older, non-conformant user agents" while the use of '.ttf' implies > conformance. [to what?] Makes sense. Changed .ttf examples to .woff and trimmed "non-conformant". Do these changes resolve your concern? Cheers, John Daggett revision: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/dbd4337ff7d7
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 01:43:58 UTC