- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:22:01 +0200
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: (wrong string) åkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
Also sprach Levantovsky, Vladimir:
> > > We accept it's not up to us to pick the outcome; and if that means
> > > dumping EOT, so be it.
> >
> > And replacing it with a backwards-compatible format, I presume?
> > Otherwise, users would be equally "screwed", no?
>
> And if you and I do care about authors (as you indicated in your
> ATypI presentation), than backward-compatible solution that can be
> implemented and deployed fast and with minimal efforts should be
> our first priority.
Yes. That can be done today, I believe, by serving EOT to IE and TT/OT
to others.
So, from a /technical/ point of view, there is no need for a new format.
Another point that hasn't been discussed much is how long it takes to
charter, write, vote, implement, test, deploy, and bug-fix a new W3C
Recommendation. We have some numbers here:
- W3C released the PNG Recommendation in October 1996. It took exactly
a decade for all browsers to add full support for PNG images: IE7
was released in October 2006
- CSS2 was released in 1998. This year, more than a decade later, we
reached a point where all major browsers supports all major CSS2
features (that survived the CSS 2.1 pruning efforts).
- SVG 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation in September 2001, but is still
not supported by all major browsers.
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 23:22:51 UTC