- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 17:34:15 +0100
- To: David Kuettel <kuettel@google.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, WebFonts WG <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On 3/10/14 17:20, David Kuettel wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir > <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com > <mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>> wrote: > > Great, thank you Jonathan and Chris! > > > Wow, that is absolutely fantastic! Great work Jonathan! > > We will target enabling WOFF 2.0 support for Firefox (Gecko 35+) for > Google Fonts. > Thanks, David. Note that we are likely to ship this, initially at least, behind a runtime pref, so you can't rely solely on the Gecko version to determine whether WOFF 2 is supported. I think the proper approach for a webfonts service is to offer both WOFF2 and WOFF [and EOT/TTF/SVG/anything else you care to provide] resources, with the appropriate format hints in the @font-face rule, allowing the browser to choose which resource to fetch according to its current capabilities. Even once we ship with WOFF2 enabled by default (which may not be the case in the first release where we ship the code), it'll still be possible for users to disable it -- or for us to disable it in an update, e.g. if a nasty security issue were suddenly found in the decoder -- and then we'd want to fall back to requesting WOFF fonts. If a webfont service offers *only* WOFF2, based on sniffing the browser version, webfonts would break completely in this scenario, whereas offering multiple resources with format hints provides a graceful fallback. JK
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 16:34:37 UTC