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

Re: the truth which dare not speak it's name

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:35:55 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0907071935j6190e632qda4768cf0f80b44e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> everyone you're telling me about
> can begrudgingly agree to a Recommendation that requires
> both TTF/OTF AND some variation on EOT-lite.

I do not believe hat is true. I gather many font vendors think that
agreeing to a Recommendation that *requires* support for raw TTF/OTF
is a pretty bad idea for them. (I happen to think they are correct,
and just advised a vendor in the last 24 hours that I thought their
best interest was in that position, but that's another matter.)

Here's an interesting exercise for each font vendor: think hard about
how minimally useful EOT Lite would be, and whether gaining support
for that is worth having all browsers support raw desktop fonts as
well. Are you better off with the status quo of no single format for
web fonts at all, and various vendors coming out with their own
solutions relying on the differing font formats already supported?
(TypeKit, Kernest, etc.)

The equivalent exercise for each browser vendor: if font vendors won't
back a mandatory-TTF/OTF-if-anything approach, are your users better
off with no single standard, or would they be better off if you
converged on something they were willing to live with?


Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 02:36:36 UTC

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