- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:21:16 +1100
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mxBiaegJBTzUHjfRZsGAOW9T1NyJREaWA-pM6Oou62-w@mail.gmail.com>
Excellent. Sorry for the misleading summary and thanks for checking! Cheers, Silvia. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>wrote: > Thanks! > > So it was just a removal of a recommendation to use vector fonts. It > doesn't actually say anything positive (or even directly) about any type of > fonts. OK – that seems completely innocuous. > > Leonard > > From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:37 PM > To: Adobe <lrosenth@adobe.com> > Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org> > Subject: Bitmap fonts in HTML (was: Re: Staged bugs & editorial fixes for > HTML5.0, and staged WHATWG patches for HTML5.1) > > (moving to its own thread) > > Hi Leonard, > > The relevant commit is this: > http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7586&to=7587 > > My quick and dirty summary did not represent everything that is happening > there, so please read the full patch to get all the details. > > Regards, > Silvia. > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>wrote: > >> >* allow use of bitmap fonts (7587) >> > >> This one REALLY concerns me for a variety of reasons. Can you point to >> where in the WHATWG spec this lives? >> >> However, I can't think of a single good reason to include this in HTML – >> and LOTS of reasons to reject it. >> >> Thanks, >> Leonard >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 11:22:02 UTC