W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:05:06 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020BD75A@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> When I started arguing for a web fonts revival in 2006 [1], EOT was not
> documented. It's fairly rich for Microsoft to critizise other vendors
> for adding support for TT/OT when you kept your own format secret and
> patent-encumbered.
> [1] http://news.cnet.com/Microsofts-forgotten-monopoly/2010-1032_3-
> 6085417.html
This so-called secret format was documented and submitted to the W3C well before 3 of those four implementations shipped. The submission has been available here for over a year: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/

But if we must talk about rich, insisting on calling 'interoperability' a fragmented solution
that makes typography more difficult for all web authors - as if repeating it made it true - is not bad either.

I do not believe, however, that the goal of this WG is to establish who has a monopoly on overheated rhetoric. That would definitely take way too long to settle :)

(Incidentally, interop is not just file formats; Firefox does a same-origin check, Safari does not afaik. Aren't authors' deployment options constrained by Mozilla's choice here ?)

I personally do not criticize what you, Mozilla, Apple or Prince did. From a purely technical
standpoint, I've already stated that's a valid and consistent way to implement it. However, if our primary goal is
the richest possible web typography instead of architectural purity or code cleanliness then this solution is quite limiting for authors who care about typography today; and it is likely to remain so for as long as we stick to the status quo. Being unwilling to address this in a positive and reasonable manner is what I have a problem with. Yes, font vendors are the ones limiting availability. But if browser vendors can agree with them to a simple workaround, one that is standard, open and without any patent issues, why obstruct it ?

Given your background and influence I thought you'd be in an ideal position to drive such a working compromise. That after all these years, you would welcome the efforts of Microsoft - well, at least mine, as limited as they are - and those of font vendors, however late they may be.

Instead, most of what I see here is stalling through re-hashing of historical grievances, requests to wait for 5 years (for what ? I'm not sure) and other dubious arguments (standardization is too slow ! skip it !). I'm sorry if you think Microsoft's sins somehow entitle you to dismiss and obstruct anything we and font vendors propose to increase author choice and interoperability. That's too bad.
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 16:05:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:31 UTC