- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:23:19 -0500
- 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? ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:24:19 UTC