- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:36:34 -0700
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
A font WG would be valuable for the purposes of: 1) Formalizing "EOT without mandatory root-string enforcement" as mandatory for conformance. 2) Formalizing that everyone is free to implement EOT. 3) Formalizing that TTF is mandatory. 4) Considering issues regarding compression and subsetting. 5) Perhaps considering the simple wrapper format proposal. -t On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 15:56 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2009/7/15 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Dave Crossland<dave@lab6.com> wrote: > >> > >> Ascender have just announced they will be licensing EOTs by the end of > >> the month. > > > > The important question now is, will the non-IE browsers implement > > this? Moz, Opera, Webkit folks? > > As well, will IE implement TTF linking now? IE folks? > > I think the chance of either camp doing either is slim to none. > > > Finally, will everybody use same-origin restrictions on fonts? We > > need to standardize on this, and I think SO is a good idea. > > Referrer checking creates the same effect, so it doesn't matter if > they standardise it or not, because foundries will require referrer > checking until the current Safari userbase moved on to Safari 5 - > which will take years, the BBC still support Safari 3 for example. >
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 17:37:15 UTC