- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:34:41 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: (wrong string) åkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
> > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser
> > vendors accept to ship an inferior product.
>
> Only in the sense that you are currently shipping an inferior product,
> and will continue to do so. I don't think Opera considers itself
> inferior for not shipping EOT.
Things change if you start supporting a "lite" version of a standards.
People will expect you to soon start supporting the "full" standard.
> > Microsoft marketing would
> > quickly claim that only they "fully support EOT".
>
> That's claimable *right now*.
Again, the comparison changes if competitors start supporting the
"lite" version, thereby seemingly acknowleding that the standard is
a good idea.
I don't think "EOT Lite" is such a good idea. I don't *any* standard
should have the word "lite" in it:
We begin with the name. The members of the Rapporteur Group strongly
prefer "DSSSL Core" over "DSSSL Lite" as the name of the mandatory
subset of DSSSL, for two reasons. First, "Lite" is the well-known
name of a particularly insipid brand of beer; and second, the term
"DSSSL Lite" suggests incorrectly that what is being referred to is a
standard parallel to and separate from DSSSL itself. This discussion
is not about the establishment of a separate standard but rather about
the definition of a conformance level of DSSSL.
http://xml.coverpages.org/dssslCore1.txt
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:35:40 UTC