Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Sylvain Galineau<> wrote:
>>From: Tab Atkins Jr. []
>>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
> 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.

Apologies; I didn't mean to imply anything with that. I meant that,
assuming we can interop on raw TTF/OTF quickly (only one major browser
is left to do so), I care *much* less about what other formats we
interop on.

No matter whether it's a quick or slow process, whether a new standard
has to be produced or we just pick up EOT, having quick universal
support for raw TTF/OTF means that we authors can at least use *some*
of our fonts immediately.  Afterwards you can take as much time as
necessary balancing author benefit against font-foundry happiness to
create a truly exceptional solution.


Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 14:09:53 UTC