RE: WOFF without SOR?

> 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.

Precisely. We - Microsoft, Mozilla and other WG members - have agreed
it is best to require this. You're free to disagree, but it would be 
helpful if someone at Opera could be constructive on the issue. If it's 
not mandatory and two shipping implementations do it then how do you suggest 
we achieve interoperability for web authors?

> The WOFF specification will achieve interoperability faster if we make SOR
> a separate module.

That sounds like a dubious assertion. We already have a module and there is
no reason why it couldn't require this behavior and point to the CORS section 
that defines how it works. Starting up a new module and take it through its
own standard track is *not* a time saver, as you well know. At a minimum, it
creates a situation where an implementation could be conformant one day
then non-conformant the next. If we already know that's going to be the case
then I don't see the benefit of splitting conformance requirements across 
multiple documents over a longer period of time.

Moreover, if the reason to start a new spec is that the issue is 
'controversial' then it's harder to believe doubt your goal is to achieve 
interoperability faster.

The fastest way to achieve interoperability would be for Opera to ship
an implementation that is compatible with Mozilla's and Microsoft's as
well as the current specification. These implementations have been
available for quite some time. I'm positive John, Jonathan, Sergey and I
would have been happy to answer your questions on the matter.

> The browser vendors that have not been part of discussions so far should
> also consulted on this issue.

You have been part of the discussion since the very beginning; as the
post you linked to attests, none of this is news to you. This issue has been
at least referenced in WebKit's bugzilla database months ago so it's not
new to them either. All browser vendors are welcome to participate actively 
and provide constructive feedback. We can't really force them, though. 

I certainly wish Opera was more active and constructive on this issue
and many others here. If you can't or won't be, that's fine too. But then 
it isn't fair for you to imply you've been somehow ignored and demand a 
new, separate spec. It isn't helpful for the WG member with the lowest 
level of overall participation to show up after all the hard work is 
almost done to demand a new spec for a single conformance requirement 
that has been known and understood since before Firefox 3.5 shipped.

It would be more helpful at this point if you just agreed you'll be 
non-conformant with this particular requirement. If you don't care 
much for it and believe it's unnecessary then it shouldn't really 
matter, should it ?

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 17:01:31 UTC