- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:03:41 -0700
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 22:43 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > 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" ;-)
We can not agree that any font-specific compression
scheme is needed. See the earlier messages on this
topic. Generic compression that can be handled at
the HTTP level, applied to existing font formats,
appears to be quite sufficient.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009AprJun/0002.html
The rationale for "EOT Lite" appears to remain nothing
more or less than *breaking* interop by gratuitously
proliferating font formats. Shame on that proposal.
At least the wrapper proposal, which I really suggest
you get behind, contributes useful functionality not
better achieved by existing mechanisms.
Regards,
-t
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 03:04:20 UTC