- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:44:00 -0500
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote: > 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 Then we can... call it something else? If the name is what's making you hang back, then we're basically done I guess. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:45:04 UTC