Re: Not replacing OTF/TTF linking

Hi,

Many people here are strongly opposed to TTF web fonts and would ask
browsers to retract the feature if they thought the request would have any
chance of compliance. But they all understand the horse left the barn a long
time ago.

The proposed new formats seek to eclipse TTF and EOT and relieve pressure on
MS to implement TTF linking or everyone else to implement EOT. Obviously I
think MS is under more pressure than they will admit, since I think their
browser popularity is in terminal decline, which is why 2 years ago they
pushed so hard on EOT standardisation.

So new formats dont need to say anything about TTF, or EOT, because they aim
to make both irrelevant.

Regards, Dave

On 7 Aug 2009, 7:35 PM, "Ben Weiner" <ben@readingtype.org.uk> wrote:

Hi,

I wrote:

> As I understand it, this proposal is intended to *replace* OTF/TTF font
> linking."
>

Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>
> Fwiw, it was also never a goal of the EOTL proposal to replace anything, or
> even suggest that it should do so.
>
Erik van Blokland wrote (on OpenFontLibrary):

>
> The webotf proposal does not state anything about replacing otf / ttf
> linking.
>
OK, I thought that was an significant issue.
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, and that the format is selected on its merits (like,
publisher A will license in format Y or type-designer B thinks the licence
expression is better in format Z) alone.

Am I catching up now?

Thanks for your forbearance,
Ben


-- 
Ben Weiner | http://readingtype.org.uk/about/contact.html