Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

[Reordered, to put your response in the proper location in the quote tower.]

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Chris Wilson<> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Chris Wilson<> wrote:
>>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>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?
>>> My problem is with supporting TTF/OTF period; of course, I don't demand that some other system remove their >support, but I find it inherently limited and would prefer to have one format that makes it easy for all fonts.
>> I'm sorry, but that doesn't quite answer my question.  What is *wrong*
>> with supporting both TTF/OTF and another format?
> It includes supporting TTF/OTF, which I think is irresponsible, and it's redundant, since any font you could use with TTF you could use with another format.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'irresponsible'?

Redundant is true, but that argument's a dead end, as without further
qualifications it applies to *any* font format.  There aren't any
massive technical issues causing incompatibility between any existing
or proposed font format.

I removed a paragraph talking about this from a previous email, but
*interoperable* redundancy can be a win for authors.  We redundantly
support jpg, gif, and png formats in images (among others), as each
has benefits in certain situations.  This redundancy allows us authors
to choose which format is ideal or most convenient.  It wasn't
necessary, and in fact would be somewhat disadvantageous, to remove
that redundancy in image formats.  Similarly, raw TTF has clear
benefits (it's trivial to use), while other formats that have been
discussed have their own benefits they can bring to us.  As long as we
have interop, there is absolutely nothing wrong with multiple formats.


Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:53:48 UTC