Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com> wrote:
> On 11 May 2010 20:17, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
>> Thomas Phinney wrote:
>>
>>> I would expect the browser
>>> folks to object strenuously to this if that was the expectation.
>>
>> There is no expectation at all on UA agents. The proposed text re. embedding
>> bits is that UA's will ignore them completely. The question regards tools
>> for creating WOFF files.
>
> Why will WOFF tool folks not object strenuously to this?

That would be my expectation as well. I apologize for losing track of
the scope (WOFF tools vs general user agents), but I think it would be
equally problematic to not be able to process existing fonts into
WOFF.

However, the OS/2 version bump is one solution.

T

-- 
"I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a
hands-free headset." — http://xkcd.com/736/

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:01:23 UTC