- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:07:31 -0700
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Ben Weiner wrote: > In fact both EOTL and webOTF proponents are happy that TTF and OTF > remain as viable formats for linking with @font-face as they are in > current W3C recommendations Careful how you word this. What Erik said was The webotf proposal does not state anything about replacing otf / ttf linking. Which is hardly a statement of 'happiness' with naked font linking. Most font makers are pretty much resigned that existing naked font linking is not going to go away, but we are far from happy to see it propagated further. This seems to me a moot point, though: since Microsoft remain very much opposed to naked font linking and are unlikely to support it in IE, and large numbers of font makers are opposed to licensing for that format, it doesn't seem viable as an interoperable format. What we're looking for is a format that is interoperable in terms of widespread browser support and suitability to various kinds of licensing, rather than suitability only to free licensing. JH
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 20:08:12 UTC