RE: .webfont Proposal 2

>From: Thomas Lord []

>All I can say, Sylvain, is that I have existence
>proof that there exist others who have vastly less
>difficulty than you profess to have following my
>arguments and not mistaking them for bald assertions.

And I have proof of the converse. So what ? What can one prove
by appealing to anonymous authorities ? It's not who or how many
that matter, but why. Maybe these individuals should step up. They might
be able to actually back up this idea instead of rudely evading any inconvenient

>I'm not interested in getting (any further) into
>what we called, in the vernacular of some societies
>I've passed among, a "piss fight" - but I've no
>confidence you share that sentiment based on your

Yes, you're not interested in answering any specific questions. For instance,
that you name standards that recommend using MIME for the purpose you suggest
using it here : to bind a manifest to one or more binary files. I
asked that you name specific applications that do so, just like I named
applications that use the solution I and the authors of this proposal are
comfortable with. I note that you still avoid answering this question. Why, if
it is such a clear case ?

If asking for relevant implementation evidence in order to change a proposal that
Already conforms to accepted practice constitutes a 'piss fight', then I would suggest
designing standards may not be your thing.

Overall, I'm satisfied we have clearly established there are no objective reasons to prefer
MIME to encode .webfont files instead of a compressed .zip. Thank you.

Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 03:21:13 UTC