Re: cutting to the chase

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> These conclusions from the discussion seem
> correct to me:
> 1) Consensus on a wrapper format is not
> forthcoming anytime soon.  Implementation
> experience with wrapper formats in UAs is
> missing and not expected in any serious form
> anytime soon.

"Anytime soon" is perhaps correct, because we're purposely

> 2) Consensus on EOT-classic (with or without
> rootstring enforcement, MTX, and so forth)
> is unlikely to ever be reached.

Correct on this.  The non-IE browsers have made it clear that they
will not support EOT.

> 3) Consensus on EOTL variants is unlikely
> to ever be reached.

Completely incorrect.  Daggett and Galineau (from Mozilla and MS,
respectively) are producing an updated EOTL spec on the list as we
speak, and the issues we're arguing over are fairly minor.  The worth
of supporting EOTL in general seems to be relatively evident to a good
number of people.

Nice rhetorical trick, though, saying that EOTL consensus is "unlikely
to ever be reached", while container-format consensus is merely "not
forthcoming anytime soon".

> 4) Rough consensus on TTF/OTF exists and
> plenty of working code exists.  If this
> were to appear as a requirement in a draft
> Recommendation, formal Objections would likely
> be raised by some font vendors and/or Microsoft.
> It is unlikely that these Objections could be
> resolved by the WG and thus they would be taken
> up by the Director in consultation with the AB
> and TAG.

As sad as I am to say it, this is incorrect.  There is no such
consensus - the IE team refuses to implement it.

> 5) Rough consensus on same-origin+CORS restrictions
> on font linking is achievable.

Correct.  Everyone seems to accept that same-origin restrictions, with
CORS to modulate it, is a good thing that will be useful to authors.

> The sanctification of a Recommendation that requires
> TTF/OTF, most likely with same-origin+CORS, would
> encourage the use of fonts on the web.  It would
> contribute to the breadth and depth of conforming
> web content.  It would likely stimulate the development
> and release of fonts for web use.
> Such sanctification risks creating a schism in
> which Microsoft refuses to ever conform.  Perhaps
> such a schism harms W3C's overall efforts or perhaps
> not.
> Withholding such sanctification risks creating a
> schism in which Microsoft plays an unduly dominant
> role in determining the content of Recommendations.

"Microsoft" doesn't play an unduly dominant role.  Users do.  A
majority of users are using a Microsoft-created browser.  Thus any
proposal which Microsoft absolutely refuses to conform to is a
non-starter, at least if you want your proposals to reflect reality
rather than fantasy.

I hate this fact, but there are lots of things about reality that I
hate.  It doesn't go away when I refuse to believe in it, though.


Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 14:48:50 UTC