W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:23:19 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907021323l76cdc079v96d091af82949a3c@mail.gmail.com>
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 Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] wrote:
>>User Agent implementors are here. Web Designers are here. And we
>>seemed to find common ground on the original proposal from Ascender, a
>>font vendor.
> Really?  Because I haven't seen you endorse any solution that explicitly REPLACES the use of TTF/OTF linking, I've only heard you say you'll go along with some other new format as long as TTF/OTF linking is explicitly required, too.  Ascender's original proposal[1] explicitly states "We propose that raw .TTF and .OTF fonts, and .EOT fonts be replaced by a new web-specific font format (termed '.OTW') for use with websites."  Are you saying you're happy with their original proposal, with no requirement of implementing TTF/OTF linking in addition?

In all the discussion, I can't recall this specific question being
asked, so I'll ask it: What exactly is the problem with supporting
TTF/OTF *and* another format?

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:24:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:32 UTC