Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Thomas Lord<> 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.


Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 02:50:43 UTC