- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:57:22 +0200
- 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0365.html 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/ -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:58:21 UTC