- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:07:50 -0400
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Your "compromise" still includes the one "feature" that we (and font vendors) have said isn't acceptable - direct TTF/OTF linking. Both Sylvain Galineau (from you) and Vladimir Levantovsky (from font vendors) seem to think that direct TTF/OTF linking would be worth consideration as long as a format more palatable to the font vendors is universally supported too. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > I don't see much benefit in having a font format whose only difference > from TTF is such that it doesn't work in Windows, but that is otherwise > identical (working on Linux and Mac, having exactly the same features as > TTF, and working exactly like TTF would in all browsers except IE). The benefit is a format everyone is willing to support, so authors don't have to provide two font formats. As I believe you yourself have said elsewhere even within the past couple of days, a standard that implementers won't implement isn't useful, regardless of their reasons.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 00:08:31 UTC