- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 21:49:47 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 01:09 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> Your solution requires changes to the exact same software but that's good because you state that is so. > > You are frothing at the mouth. And abusing the phrase > "exact same" quite a bit. > > Would you like to discuss in more detail how my > proposal significantly differs? Or, are > we just muddying the waters here? In this respect your proposal does *not* significantly differ. A wrapper format for fonts requires the same kind of changes to browsers (we can debate the exact magnitude, but all of the current proposals are relatively small) that any obfuscation-based or compression-based proposal requires. Just accepting EOT or TTF/OTF would mean that at least *some* browsers don't have to put forth any new effort. Anything else (including your proposal) means changes in all of them. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 02:50:43 UTC