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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:57:22 +0200
Message-ID: <19021.11586.901844.162367@opera.com>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: (wrong string) åkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Also sprach Chris Wilson:

 > >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.

That's correct. 

 > 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."

Replace seems ambigous here: does it mean 'eradicate from the web' or
'offer the same functionality as'. I assumed the latter, but that's
not necessarily what they meant.

 > Are you saying you're happy with their original proposal, with no
 > requirement of implementing TTF/OTF linking in addition?

No, I've argued consistently for a compromise that involves
cross-browser support for TTF/OTF in addition to obfuscation/CORS.

There are three main reasons why I think it is important that IE
supports TTF/OTF:

 - you support this in other applications

 - it's trivial for you to implement

 - it seems wasteful to require everyone to convert legitimate TTF/OTF
   files to a new format for web use 

(If all browsers support format X and all minus one support format Y,
people will -- in practice -- be forced to use format X)

 > >Now, it appears that Ascender have changed their mind; to "use
 > >commercial fonts today", they revised their proposal. Their argument
 > >[1] is only about timing, so one must presume they're still
 > >comfortable with their original proposal.
 > I would expect them to speak for themselves

Ascender, are you here?

 > >Therefore, it seems that all stakeholders that you mention are
 > >comfortable with Ascender's original proposal. Still, you dismiss it.
 > >Are there other reasons why you cannot support the outlined
 > >compromise?
 > I'm sorry, where did I dismiss Ascender's original proposal? I do
 > not believe I did.

It seemed that you dismissed CORS in this message:


where you wrote:

    I don't think CORS is a good application here, as it seems much
    more destructive to workflow than generating EOT files.

 > All that I have explicitly disagreed with is YOUR ADDITION to
 > Ascender's original proposal, which is "AND you need to implement
 > TTF/OTF linking too."

For the sake of interoperability, I stand by the AND.

 > I expect you are trying to insinuate something here. Good for me
 > that I don't have anything to hide. Unfortunate that you still
 > treat me with that amount of respect

I always treat you with respect, Chris. I not given due credit for
devoting my life to improving Internet Explorer, though :-)

 > I've had one meeting with Ascender folks in the past few weeks - on
 > June 16th

Thank you for sharing your notes.

 > In fact, I seem to recall recognizing aloud during that meeting
 > that the discussion on EOT had clearly passed beyond the boundary
 > of the Law of Fail
 > (http://dashes.com/anil/2009/06/the-end-of-fail.html), much to my
 > dismay.

Their revised proposal is much closer to your own submission [1], so
it seems they're trying to un-fail you.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/EOT/

              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:58:21 UTC

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