- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:04:17 +0100
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "info@ascenderfonts.com" <info@ascenderfonts.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:
> > The WOFF submission didn't include SOR, and adding it to the WD has been
> > controversial.
>
> It was agreed very early on; the WG's charter, which Opera accepted, says
> that the conformance specification will 'reference...access policies such
> as same-origin and CORS'.
That's hardly the same as making it mandatory. And the next sentence reads:
WOFF will be the required format for compliance, the others being
optional. The Working Group will decide whether to make the formats
and linking mechanisms normative references...
So the WG isn't tied to mandating SOR; we are free to do what we think
is best.
The WOFF specification will achieve interoperability faster if we
make SOR a separate module.
The browser vendors that have not been part of discussions so far
should also consulted on this issue.
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 16:05:10 UTC