- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> > None of the remaining data in that header seems like it's > > useful...<snip> I don't see a why other browser vendors should > > bend over backwards...<snip> > > Pardon the convenient snips but Tab is right. There is a glaring > contradiction here. Skipping a useless header hardly constitutes > 'bending over backwards'. All your original objections - MTX, > rootstrings - have now been removed. Sorry but I don't see a contradiction here. If all browser vendors are going to make the effort to support a new format it should be one that behaves consistently across browsers and supports all forms of OpenType fonts. Supporting some form of EOT produces inconsistent behavior, it limits what can go into the standard in order to fit the behavior of older versions of IE. This is just what Jonathan Kew pointed out [1]. For example, older versions of IE don't support same-origin restrictions so cross-site font linking would work with these versions but wouldn't work with browsers supporting same-origin restrictions. Conversely, EOT root strings would still work in older versions of IE but not in other browsers. > Fine. What does Mozilla propose then ? .webfont ? ZOT ? Other ? We'd > prefer something EOT-compatible - duh, even - but indicated many > times we're open to alternatives if that's what it takes, one that > has the support of authors and font designers. That position still > stands. Great. As I mentioned previously, both .webfont and ZOT seem fine to me but it needs to be a format that other browser vendors also agree upon. My only concern with .webfont was that font vendors were endorsing .webfont because it appeared to have root strings but the latest version makes it clear that it doesn't. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0185.html
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 02:21:29 UTC