- From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:04:36 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> In the meantime, those who want to continue discussing the merits and >> deficiencies of EOT Lite should do so. > > I look forward to hearing about the real merits or deficiencies of > Ascender's proposal, preferably based on evidence and use-cases. > Some of the perceived or made-up ones that have been brought up > before are not worth any further consideration. One of the professed advantages of EOT Lite is its existing "installed base" (i.e. Internet Explorer). However, for those who are more interested in CFF-EOT fonts, there are significant and well-known deficiencies in the Windows/IE platform. Acknowledging that these deficiencies are bugs and/or "should be fixed" is something, but obviously it is more valuable to know that they *will* be fixed soon (to the extent that they can be fixed at all). Win/IE's problems with CFF are relevant for any web font format (or raw fonts, for that matter), but it seems obvious that MS is going to have to "walk the walk" if it wants to see EOT be more than a niche solution. I think Ascender has done MS a great favor by giving EOT a second wind as EOT Lite, but it's DOA if the CFF issues persist. Sylvain, what do you think? I've already heard both optimistic and pessimistic assessments of this situation, and I'm looking for some reason to trust the former. Regards, Christopher
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 22:05:58 UTC