- 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>
>-----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