- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 00:21:21 -0700
- To: rfink@readableweb.com
- Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Specifically, it is at least possible that OpenType could add an > fsType bit that purports to dictate whether a WOFF creation tool > should process a font. In that eventuality, it would be seriously > messed up for the WOFF spec to be saying they are not allowed to pay > attention to such a bit. I should also be clear that if the WOFF spec did say that, I don't think the OT spec would be likely to contradict it any time soon, especially given that the overwhelming majority of the OT spec players are on this list and involved in this thread. I just think it would be unwise to set up a potential contradiction. Cheers, T -- "I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a hands-free headset." — http://xkcd.com/736/
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 08:14:27 UTC