RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Monday, June 29, 2009 9:54 PM John Daggett wrote:
> 
> Note that Ascender is now proposing EOT minus root strings/compression:
> 
>   http://blog.fontembedding.com/post/2009/06/29/Revised-Web-Fonts-

> Proposal.aspx
> 
> Implicit in both this and their old proposal is the assumption that
> this is the *only* web font format, that TTF/OTF fonts are not linkable
> resources. 

How so? Does it become "implicit" just because someone believes there is a better solution? FWIW, I do believe that EOT (or "EOT Lite") is a better solution that raw TTF/OTF fonts, and I also believe that we can come up with even better solution if we just agree to work on it together.

> So web authors using either free fonts or fonts with a
> license that permits direct linking would be forced through extra hoops
> for no tangible benefit whatsoever.

Compression would be a tangible benefit for both web authors and users, would you agree? We can bring it back to "EOT Lite" ;-)

> 
> Obfuscated/compression schemes are fine but not if it implies that we
> make things harder rather than easier for some users.

How so? Why do you believe that conversion of fonts to "EOT Lite" would be any harder that font renaming you proposed earlier?

Regards,
Vladimir

> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> To: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>
> Cc: "Vladimir Levantovsky" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>,
> www-font@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:18:44 AM GMT +09:00 Japan
> Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback
> 
> 
> >From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
> 
> 
> >No. (at this point, I could become personally offended for you trying
> >to put words in my mouth, but I won't :-)
> I'm glad we feel the same :)
> 
> 
> >Was PNG that hard?
> It sure took long, by your own account. But yes, formalizing a
> lightweight encoding proposal like Ascender's should be a lot less work
> than specifying a new graphics format. But it seems agreeing to get
> started could take as long as it will take to actually do it ?
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 02:47:29 UTC