- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:17:21 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > 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. I'm no longer representing a type foundry, but I can predict how most of them will react.... Having raw TTF/OTF as a required format is only of any interest if some more foundry-friendly format is also a required format. Otherwise, they are $c&!'ed. Maybe that was at the root of Sylvain's last question to Håkon. Cheers, T
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 08:18:02 UTC