Re: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, John Hudson<> wrote:
> Erik van Blokland wrote:
>> Jonathan Kew noted he's interested, but traveling this week. We have a
>> couple of ideas, this is a bit more complex in several ways, so we're going
>> to use this week to think things over.
>> Can we trust you kids to  play nicely?
> I think it is a good idea to let Erik, Tal and Jonathan take a while to look
> at .webfont and ZOT together. Now that these proposals are clearly serious
> contenders, we should let their inventors refine them in light of the
> discussion to date.
> In the meantime, those who want to continue discussing the merits and
> deficiencies of EOT Lite should do so.

Keep in mind that EOT Lite is not competing with any of the other
formats being proposed.  It's a short-term solution that lets us hit
interop in the near future.  More ideal solutions can and likely will
replace it later on, but even in the best case this won't happen for
at least half a decade.

The question is not, and should never have been, "Which format should
we standardize on among EOT-Lite, .webfont, ZOT, etc.?".  There are in
fact two separate questions, "Is EOT-Lite acceptable to standardize on
right now?" and then "Which format do we want to standardize on for
the future?".

I'm obviously of the strong opinion that the answer to the first
question is "Yes, and as fast as possible omgwtfbbq".  The second
question is still undecided, and has some interesting analysis
happening for it.  I'm happy to see this!  ^_^


Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 20:26:33 UTC