Re: WOFF without same origin restriction in Opera?

David, it is certainly true that the WG, as "ambassadors" of WOFF, needs to be conscious of its image among the public and around the industry. It doesn't hurt to be reminded of that from time to time, so I appreciate it.

With that said, I can't tell if you're making a distinction between WG members and the "public" you referring to. Some recent comments here have been provoked by statements from Apple, which is represented in the WG, and Behdad, who is also a WG member. I think expectations for WG members are different than for the general public.

It might be unseemly for some of these arguments between WG members to be made on this public-facing list, or it might be interesting/entertaining to observe. Personally, I'm not sure. I might suggest that it's at least as unwise for WG members to make disparaging comments in public as it is for WG members to argue against those disparaging comments in public. Is the former any more appropriate than the latter? I suspect it would be better to avoid both.

-Christopher


On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:55 AM, David Berlow wrote:

> A lot of what has been said in this thread is great information. I think you have a potentially huge public relations problem though, if the public can come here, as invited, and be scathed for not being informed enough to not make any "mistakes" in either facts or opinions while interacting with the group. Not even Apple or Howcome seem immune from this.
> 
> Now I think the suggestion of better documentation, as I made before, needs to be augmented by much better control over the group's tone of response and self control in the face of a public that is understandably unconcerned with how long and hard the group worked on this. The public, as any of us in the font industry serving e.g. the windows market knows, is much more concerned with what does not work, than counting the blessings of what does work.

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 20:20:01 UTC