- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:31:08 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > But if the vendor, in some cases, allows you to convert your TTFs, why do we > need to decide which embedding bit(s) allow this conversion ? We're adding > an extra step for font and tool vendors for what exact benefit ? What if a > font vendor like Adobe want to allow thousands of existing customers to convert > some of their catalog to web use but they don't have the right bits set currently? > Should their future tool prevent their customers from doing that ? > > I don't mean to sound like this makes no sense. It's clear that it does to you > guys but I'm missing something. That's why existing fonts are not treated as having the bit at all, it's just a reserved bit. The bit being zero only has meaning if the font has a new version of the OS/2 table, signifying that the unset bit has meaning. (Or if a new version of the OS/2 table is unacceptable, we'd have to use two bits.) Regards, -- "I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a hands-free headset." — http://xkcd.com/736/
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 03:31:42 UTC