- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:23:41 +0000
- To: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Public CSS Test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote: > Le 2017-02-17 13:16, Chris Lilley a écrit : >> >> On 2017-02-16 17:22, Gérard Talbot wrote: >>> >>> Is declaring the .woff equivalent sufficient? I do not think so, >> >> why not? >>> >>> furthermore if the .woff filesize is rather big. >> >> So? If that is the size of the font the test requires, so be it. >> If that is a concern though, link to a woff2 as first choice with woff >> 1.0 as the fallback. Ensure these two are identical (made from the >> same ttf or otf). > > > > Chris, > > Which tool do you use to ensure that a .woff file and a .woff2 file have > been created using the same ttf or otf? It seems much easier to just use a WOFF file alone than trying to work out how to keep different files in sync and how to verify that. I'm very much against duplication because it almost always ends up with things broken in some cases. /g
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 21:24:15 UTC