Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Chris Wilson<> wrote:
> Håkon Wium Lie [] 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