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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:15:14 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <61027177C88032458A7862054B3C6258059BCD@TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] wrote:
Also sprach Chris Wilson:
>> 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.

Not the same thing at all, then, as just Ascender's original proposal.

> > 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.

If your presumption is "offers the same functionality as, AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE IMPLEMENTED," then I'm sure logic would lead you to implement EOT support as well (since the Ascender proposal mentions it in exactly the same way and context).  Or not.  :)

> > 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.

I'm disinclined to acquiesce.  :)  But no surprise there, as we've discuss this deal before - and I continue to believe it is not really a compromise on your part at all.

>There are three main reasons why I think it is important that IE
>supports TTF/OTF:
> - you support this in other applications

I presume by "applications" you mean platforms, and by platforms you primarily mean Silverlight?  If there were another web font format that clearly carried licensing information, I expect Silverlight would add support for it, and guide people to it, since they have the commercial font problem today (and just chose not to start a new font format effort at the time).  They see it as a problem too.

> - it's trivial for you to implement

As it would be for you to implement EOT.  Please.  Ease of implementation, beyond avoiding ignorant design of features (i.e. a complex requirement for implementation), is not really a reason to quote here.  We're talking about a thin layer that denotes licensing terms here - even in the case of EOT, it is pretty trivial.

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

Why?  It is, in fact, a very different use, and one that has very different licensing terms - that could possibly convince new entrants into the web fonts market.  Microsoft, for example.

>> 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.

Hmm.  I did indeed say that; though I'd point out that "I don't think that's a good application" is hardly an out-of-hand dismissal; but at any rate, CORS is not explicitly mentioned in Ascender's original proposal - though they do mention some type of getting around same-origin restriction would be.  Perhaps CORS would be okay here, as I see without it you'd have same-origin; that hadn't connected.  But I was responding to your point, not Ascender's proposal, in that mail.

> > 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 :-)

Hmm.  I could draw a number of analogies here that would probably be insulting and unfair.  I understand that you want the web to be a better place, Håkon; that does not mean I approve of your methods, or that I believe you're as effective as you could be at that goal.

> > 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.

That's not up to them; the discourse is in the broader community, and that hasn't changed.  The "failure", in this case, is not the "failure of the community to just adopt EOT as is" - it's a failure to rationalize all constraints, and find a solution that satisfies them all.


PS Tomorrow is a holiday in the US; it's also the beginning of a weeklong vacation for me.  I'll be less vocal during the next week.  Appreciated, I'm sure.  :)
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:15:58 UTC

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