- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:34:33 -0400
- To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Monday, June 29, 2009 11:04 PM Thomas Lord wrote: > > The rationale for "EOT Lite" appears to remain nothing > more or less than *breaking* interop by gratuitously > proliferating font formats. Shame on that proposal. > I believe that the rationale for "EOT Lite" proposal is to create an easily implementable unified solution for font linking that enables web authors address millions (or billions) of users in a shortest possible period of time. I understand where you are coming from but, from a pragmatic point of view, I find "EOT Lite" proposal very practical. It eliminates all the concerns (such as root strings and font-specific compression) browser vendors expressed earlier, and creates a wrapper format that is easy to implement yet is backward compatible with older IE versions (which means we are not going to disenfranchise users who are still using those older IE browsers). I think that having a solution that addresses the maximum number of web users from day one of its deployment is not a bad idea. > At least the wrapper proposal, which I really suggest > you get behind, contributes useful functionality not > better achieved by existing mechanisms. And, I believe I stated on more than one occasion that I do like your wrapper proposal. I am flexible to consider a generic wrapper solution if browser vendors agree to implement it. Best regards, Vladimir > > Regards, > -t > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 03:35:03 UTC