RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback


>From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]

>> It sometimes appears that Håkon and I have
>> deep differences so I want to say that I
>> second him in that question.  It's a question
>> of Microsoft's sense of social responsibility
>> towards the standards process.
It's sort of interesting that Hakon is opposing the very existence working group aiming at more interop and user choice but our 'social responsibility' is what's in question ?
Clearly, the man has skills :)

>
>Sort of repeating what I said in my other email:
>
>As an author, as long as raw TTF/OTF is *a* required format, I'm
>*enormously* more flexible on what other formats may exist.  *One*
>common format will at least put us at a good interop level, even if
>many fonts aren't legally usable under it yet, and then we can have
>all the knockdown-dragout fights we want over which new technology to
>implement.
Why does it have to a 'knockdown-dragout fight' ? See Ascender's original proposal. It's simple, and lightweight. I see no technical or logistical reason
why it should be a long or difficult process. We're not inventing a new format or a new protocol here.

But apparently, this option must be held back in the name of interoperability with a solution that font vendors do not want to deal with.
How and why that is a better outcome for web typography and web authors, I do not know.

Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 06:40:50 UTC