Another web font linking progress summary

Hi all,

Thomas Lord wrote:
> Off we go!  I think we're almost "done" with
> the conceptual work.  Hard questions remain about:
>
> 1) The reality of the backwards-compat promise
> of EOT-lite.
>
> 2) Whether to also endorse (require?) a format
> with new meta-data like .webfont / the mime-wrapper
>
> 2.1) If so, then why the mime-wrapper approach
> to coding the .webfont accomplishments is better 
> than .webfont itself to such an extent that we have
> to go that way.  :-).  Obviously I'm a little biased
> on that one.
>   
Ace. I think we're back here again
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0390.html

With one qualifier: I think the list has come to see the importance of 
separating implementation requirements and commercial requirements, and 
to find solutions to commercial requirements off the back of solutions 
to the technical requirements rather than the other way around.

Only another 400 or so messages were required to make that progress, so 
thanks for staying tuned ;-)

Ben

-- 
Ben Weiner | http://readingtype.org.uk/about/contact.html

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 09:21:22 UTC