- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:33:00 -0400
- To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: <www-font@w3.org>
In my experience, any optional part of the spec immediately introduces interoperability issue. If we want to enable compression as an option for web authors to choose - all UA implementations must support it, otherwise it's not really an option. Vladimir > -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:29 PM > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Håkon Wium Lie > Cc: www-font@w3.org > Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Levantovsky, Vladimir > > > What about compression part? > However the compression is done, I would not expect it to be > controversial as long as it's optional. >
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 20:33:35 UTC