Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

> 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).


We've already discussed the grave problems with this approach:
-- If you want to serve a single font file to all browsers then it's hard to
deploy because you need Referer checking, and it's unreliable because many
users behind firewalls will not get the fonts.
-- The possibility of rootstrings being present and honoured by some but not
all browsers is an interop minefield, one that we'd be stuck with forever.
It doesn't matter if your spec says they are uninterpreted bytes; some
browsers interpret those bytes.

It's simpler and better for there to be two formats for the interim, have
authors serve two font files, and in the long run converge on the new
format.

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]