RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

 

 

From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:22 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; Levantovsky, Vladimir; www-font@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

 

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:

 But then if these four browser vendors knew that their preferred solution was unsatisfactory to font vendors and could result in significantly reduced user choice for an undetermined time period - a tough and risky trade-off for any web technology


Maximising user choice means the most unreasonable font vendor dictates what will be implemented. We're not going to play that game.

I am not sure if I get this right – do you find it reasonable when the most unreasonable browser vendor dictates what will (or will not) be implemented ? 

 - then I hope they are willing to engage with said font vendors and other browser makers to find a solution that benefits all our users?


We are. We already said we felt pretty good about Ascender's previous proposal. I'm not so keen on the new one...

 

I believe that the “EOT subset” discussion (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0420.html) started with the very pragmatic point of view to provide web authors with a solution that can be implemented faster and would rich as many users as possible. These are both good reasons for us to consider. The real question is - can we agree to disagree on some points but still be reasonable and able to get together to come up with a practical and pragmatic solution?

 

Regards,

Vladimir



Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]