RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Lord []

> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 21:02 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas Lord []
> >
> > > I'm unclear as the rationale for a new format defined
> > > as the same as an old format but with some tables renamed.
> > > It appears that the rationale is "break interop" in some
> > > cases.
> > > What is your view about that?
> > Break 'interop' with what ? And for whom ?
> You asked and in a later message answered yourself.
> To quote you, in response to Ian Hickson:
> >> Wouldn't operating systems just build support
> >> in for these fonts, making the entire exercise
> >> pointless? [....]
> > My employer would be unlikely to do so given
> > its stance on the matter. But yes,
> > native OS support for this font encoding may
> > bring us back to square one on that platform.

I was asking you, not me. It was a rhetorical question aimed at clarifying what kind of broken interop you're talking about. The answer is still completely unclear to me.

> > Again, our goal is to maximize author choice
> Apparently your goal is to make sure that drag and drop
> becomes broken.

For some fonts, yes. If that means more choice for web authors and users, sure.

> > i.e. you should not be limited to using either
> > free fonts or commercial fonts. Technically,
> > no such limitation exists. But major font vendors
> > do not wish to license fonts for web use
> > in their raw format (meaning, with no encoding).
> Indeed they do not.  And I fully respect their
> goal in that regard.  We differ on what it implies.
> I do not think that the position of the font
> vendors provides a reasonable rationale for
> font format proliferation whose primary purpose
> is to break inter-op.   Rather, any new format ought
> to make a positive contribution to the architecture
> of the web.

This does not break interop for the web. And I still find 'proliferation' to be a rhetorical exaggeration: 'a rapid increase in number', 'growth by the rapid multiplication of parts' are common definitions that seems needlessly excessive for one single common format. The amplification seems aimed to support bias towards your conclusion, fwiw.

> The wrapper proposal I made is technically quite
> simple, *happens to* satisfy the inter-op goals of
> a few, but *makes a significant positive contribution*
> to the functionality offered by web standards accomplished
> in a very reasonable way.

I'm sure it is but shouldn't others agree to make it so in practice ?

> > Specifically, they want web font files to incompatible
> > with those in your system's font folder;
> Why were you asking "break interop with what" and so
> forth?  You seem to know perfectly well what you are
> proposing.

Again, rhetorical question.

> > The prize is interoperability across all browsers.
> That is extortion.

Universal browser interop is extortion. OK, then.

> > Per Hakon's proposal, all browsers would support
> > both raw font linking and a lightweight encoded
> > font format aimed at commercial font vendors.
> Yes, I object to his proposal.  I agree with him
> that raw OT and TT support should be required.
> I agree with him that a novel format in addition
> is not too high a price to pay but unlike him, I
> would say that the new format must accomplish something
> more useful than satisfying an unreasonable demand
> for gratuitous incompatibility.

Extortion, gratuitous incompatibility...
I'll admit: you've lost me.

> > If we achieved this, we would achieve more interop
> > than we have today, not less.
> Do you not see how you contradict yourself?
Well, I'm positive you've failed at enlightening me.

Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 22:29:38 UTC