- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:48:58 -0700
- CC: www-font@w3.org
Thomas Lord wrote: > TTF/OTF is widely implemented and used. It is reasonably widely implemented. It is hardly used at all. EOT is more widely implemented, in terms of the number of active browsers being used, and probably still more widely used in terms of the number of sites making use of EOTs (especially in countries whose scripts have not been well-supported by the availability of 'web safe' fonts). I don't consider any of these facts to indicate a 'rough consensus' on EOT, any more than the fact that some other browsers have implemented naked font linking represents any kind of consensus on that technology. Perhaps you don't understand what the word consensus means. There is no consensus on naked font linking and there is no consensus on EOT, because both these formats are rejected outright by major stakeholders. The only consensus building I see taking place is toward defining an interoperable format that is agreeable to all the stakeholders (which is what consensus implies: not trying to force a political showdown by hijacking a standards process, as you suggest). I see people discussing technical questions around such a format, garnering support for ideas, rejecting other ideas because they block consensus: all the things that I usually associate with consensus building. It takes time, and it should take time. When someone says that they want to 'cut to the chase', that pretty reliably indicates that they realise that their favoured solution is losing out to the consensus options, and they want to strong-arm the process to get their way. The fact that almost no one among the actual stakeholders has even mentioned naked font linking at all in the past couple of weeks reinforces this impression. JH
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 03:49:40 UTC