Re: A way forward

John Daggett wrote:

> Either the .webfont format or Jonathan Kew's ZOT format seem fine to
> me, but I think Mozilla would only support an additional format that
> other browser vendors were also willing to support, including
> Microsoft.  And I don't see any other browser vendor eager to support
> any variant of EOT (with or without the spicy mustard) other than
> Microsoft.

This is exactly the basis on which I suggested .webfont as a possible 
way forward: as an additional format -- additional to EOT for IE and 
additional to naked font linking for you and some other browsers -- that 
because it doesn't have the controversial or legacy baggage of those 
formats is something that might be interoperable on all browsers. I am 
suggesting that browser makers consider mutual commitments to support 

As a type designer and font developer, I would very much like to be able 
to license fonts for a single web font format and recommend a single web 
font format to my clients. Given your resistance to anything 
EOT-related, Microsoft's resistance to naked font linking, and my own 
and my colleagues' resistance to the latter, it seems to me that 
something like .webfont is the best option going.

Again, I'm proposing this as a peaceful solution. I can also make the 
case that font makers should join with Microsoft, Ascender, Adobe, etc. 
in pushing something like EOT Lite (although preferably with released 
MTX compression). But that looks like heading to a fight, and maybe I'm 
getting old but I prefer the peaceful solution.

John Hudson

PS. I have not taken a close look at Jonathan's ZOT idea. I will, out of 
respect for him, but it needs to said that the font making community is 
is pretty much completely ignorant of this proposal.

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:19:57 UTC