- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
John Hudson 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. Name tables can be obfuscated without being "corrupt", they can be entirely copasetic but constructed in such a way that they would effectively be unusable in desktop apps.
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:42:32 UTC