Re: A way forward

Dave Crossland wrote:

> But, if that is the case - if the existing cross site restriction is
> good enough for foundries who support EOT, and their aim is to get
> profiting from web fonts ASAP, why isn't supplying TTFs with corrupt
> NAME tables and a changed file extension good enough?

Because its a hack, because it exposes the font to unknown dependencies 
in which it might not function correctly, and because we've spent the 
past ten years getting good at producing fonts to spec rather than 
putting in hacks to solve short-term software issues. We want a nice 
clean web font spec, against which we can test our products. Further, 
some of us have customers whose procurement requirements would prevent 
us from delivering fonts with corrupt data.

John Hudson

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:39:09 UTC