Re: Next step?

Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:

> 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.

I can see an argument for 'any-2-out-of-4', in that it provides a good 
chance of interoperability emerging based market determination and/or 
technical merit. The browser makers want interoperability, so it is in 
their interest to agree on which formats should be embraced, taking into 
account also which formats are most likely to be supported by font 

But I agree with Vlad that it would be better for interoperability if a 
mutually agreeable format were identified as requisite for conformance, 
i.e. if browser makers decide on the best format as part of the process 
of drafting the conformance document. WOFF seems to me the obvious 
choice, both in terms of endorsement from font vendors and lack of 
political baggage and pre-exisiting buggy implementation.

The arguments in favour of CWT are all market arguments based on its 
backwards compatibility benefits, so I think it makes sense for the 
support of that format to be determined by the market. If that backwards 
compatibility with IE6-8 is really crucial to web authors, designers and 
their clients, then there should be ample pressure browser makers and 
font vendors to support that format.

I know there are some people who believe that naked font linking should 
be one of the conformance requirements, but for reasons that we've 
discussed here at length that is contentious and unlikely ever to become 
a consensus position.

I believe consensus on WOFF is possible, and that this would be a good 
basis for identifying that format as a conformance requirement, with all 
other formats being optional.

John Hudson

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 18:09:55 UTC