RE: Next step?

+1!
I believe that the interoperability is the main goal of this activity and in order to achieve this, the future Recommendation has to mandate at least one particular format be supported by all compliant browser implementations.

Thank you,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: Chris Lilley
> Cc: John Hudson; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Next step?
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> > The conformance document would be brief, would reference the font
> > formats in existing use (OpenType, WOFF, SVG, and EOTLite) and the
> > font referencing and linking specifications (in both CSS and XML
> > serializations), and require implementation of at least one linking
> > mechanism and *at least two* formats, for compliance. There appeared
> > to be consensus on www-font that requiring at least two formats gave
> a
> > fair and even playing field and maximized interoperability.
> 
> I don't think I can agree with this; I don't believe there was any
> consensus of the sort.  Requiring 2 of the 4 does nothing to guarantee
> interop - as written, I think Opera already complies, yet it doesn't
> support WOFF *or* CWT yet.
> 
> There may have been consensus to support 2 *specific* formats -
> namely, WOFF and CWT - but supporting 2 from a list of 4 just
> gratuitously allows poor interop while claiming standards compliance.
> 
> I'd prefer a requirement of WOFF and CWT support, while allowing
> support for further formats.
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 16:07:56 UTC