Re: Support Existing Content (was: Proposed Design Principles review)

On 30 Apr, David Hyatt wrote:

> If anything blame for the failure of this feature to take off can be  
> placed squarely at the feet of the CSS WG.  If you'd talked to either  


  Someone added dynamic fonts to CSS 2. At that point, if memory serve,
  both IE and NS had their own, differing, methods, so I can only assume
  the "someone" wasn't a representative of them.

  This is a feature authors wanted. Whether it is a good one is an open

  No-one implemented it, and so the W3C dropped it from CSS 2.1. Am I to
  assume all the browser vendors thought the CSS 2.1 method was as
  horrible as the CSS 3 one is?

  Regardless, someone clearly thought it was necessary enough to suggest
  it *again* for CSS 3 - and the "Web Fonts" specification is in 'last
  call', ie. the WG consider it stable.

  May I also, then, assume, that browser vendors /won't/ implement it
  this time either, because it is "horrible", but will rather implement
  the method you have agreed on?

  But atleast ONE browser vendor is already an editor of the "Web Fonts"
  module - am I to understand that the CSS 2.1 WG accepted the vendor
  arguments, but that the CSS 3 WG is ignoring it?

  I'm confused. Will the browser vendors implement a specification that
  the WG agree on, or will they not? If they don't, what will they
  implement? One vendor representative seem to be editing the very
  suggestion that other vendor representatives appear against.

  Or - since we are discussing HTML 5 - this mean that the WHATWG
  members will implement WA1, regardless, non-WHATWG vendors will
  implement something else, and all of them will - again - ignore the
  standard ... because the standard doesn't meet with their wishes?

  Then I wonder what use there is for the /rest/ of us to participate in
  this process.

 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies            
        +46 708 557 905

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 00:06:40 UTC