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

RE: the discussion is over, resistance time

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:06:22 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, luke whitmore <lwhitmore@gmail.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020BF090@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]

>On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 00:43 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> >A system of rootstrings forbids a client from
>> >performing certain computations with a file that
>> >is already in hand, if the client is to be called
>> >conforming.  This refusal is in spite of the fact
>> >that no interop enhancement is thus obtained.
>> The first sentence is correct. The second does not logically follow.
>Today, Mozilla may reject a web font that WebKit would not. That is not
>interoperable even though rootstrings are not involved.
>That is not an *inter*-op issue.  No
>program in what you describe is confused
>as to the meaning of any particular bit of
>data.  They diverge only in terms of what
>they afford users.

That a browsers may render the same page completely differently from what the author intends given the same exact HTTP requests and responses is not an interop issues ?

I disagree. But that doesn't matter as long as you can convince web authors it's not an interop issue. Good luck.
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 01:07:09 UTC

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