- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:25:08 -0400
- To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
On Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:20 PM Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > 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. Absolutely agree. The universal support and 100% interoperability is the paramount of this effort. My comment was related to a particular feature of this future web font format, but I agree - we are not there yet. Regards, Vladimir
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 02:25:39 UTC