Re: A way forward

Håkon Wium Lie wrote:

>  > Both Sylvain Galineau and John Daggett have now indicated that they 
>  > might be willing to participate in a process to standardise something 
>  > like .webfont or ZOT. 

> I think ZOT is a very good idea. If browsers added support for ZOT,
> would you publish fonts in it?

I'm still familiarising myself with ZOT -- as I wrote earlier, it isn't 
a proposal that has been well presented to the professional font 
community; most of my colleagues are completely ignorant of it --, but 
my initial response is positive.

However, I agree with Tal that a generic wrapper that could be placed 
around other font data formats, including non-sfnt fonts, is worth 
having, rather than tying web fonts to a specific font data format (even 
if, for the time being, no other format is under consideration). 
However, there is no reason why the .webfont wrapper could not be put 
around a ZOT'd font, so both proposals could be part of an interoperable 
solution. This is something that a working group could determine.

John Hudson

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 17:25:00 UTC