RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>If Microsoft wanted other browsers to interoperate, why did you keep
>your format secret for a decade?

Did you ever ask to implement it?

>Why didn't you consult with others along the way?

Actually, we consulted with a lot of font vendors when we created OpenType Embedding - that's why it's a bit in the font file.

>Why did you add root strings to the format -- you must
>have understood that this would be contentious?

Um, no, not really.  Times change.  However, it was a protection, and not a particularly egregious one, certainly not at the time.  You can have multiple root strings.

>Asking for a WG at this stage, after other browsers have chosen to
>support another open, standardized, and universally supported format,
>is too disruptive for the emerging, interoperable webfont
>implemetations. Also, it's too late. Or, too early.

Do what you want with TTF; if you want an open, standardized, and universally supported format that actually works for web use of commercial fonts, I think we need to have a different solution.

>I'm asking for 5 years; if webfonts (as in linking to TT/OT) are not
>successfull 5 years from now, I'm happy to see a new WG chartered.

You're already 3 years in, and what's "success"?


Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 22:59:43 UTC