- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:19:55 -0400
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > I share both of your views on this. I think that compression is going to > be the most valuable component of the new web font format, providing > benefits for both authors and users. I think the most valuable component will be the fact that it's actually supported by everyone. Font-specific compression is a reasonable idea -- we don't require generic compression for images or videos, now, do we? -- but IMO it would be best to get interoperability first, and think about further enhancements later. There's no sense in sidetracking the discussion with compression before we have *complete* agreement on the much more divisive aspects of the wrapper format (what sort of anti-piracy measures? bare font linking also supported?). gzip isn't optimal, but it's good enough for a start.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 02:20:31 UTC