Re: A way forward

Håkon Wium Lie wrote:

> Great! It certainly builds the garden wall some people have been
> asking for. It also adds useful compression and flexible decompression. 

> I think we could have a compromise worked out over the weekend if font
> vendors indicate that ZOT is acceptable.

Font vendors are going to want to keep .webfont on the table. Tal and 
Erik's proposal has a lot of support from font makers, not least because 
it originates in the font community. We've been told what we're going to 
implement by software makers for the past twenty years, so it's kind of 
a nice change to have something from our side under consideration.

The only thing we're close to unanimous about not supporting is naked 
font linking.

As Tal asks: is there something about .webfont that you do not like? What?

Do you have an objection to an ad hoc or formal working group that 
considers both ZOT and .webfont or, perhaps, some combination of the two?

John Hudson

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 21:49:05 UTC