- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:16:15 +0000
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of John Hudson > 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. If browser makers could agree on that, it should have happened by now and the need for a Font WG might not be as acute. As I see it, two of these standards ought to be formally specified. And by requiring two of them, not only is the scope for further unproductive arguments much reduced but we are indeed likely to improve cross-browser interop since: - Opera already conforms as it supports two (OpenType, SVG Fonts), and seems interested in WOFF as well - Mozilla will support OpenType and WOFF and thus conform - Safari support OpenType and would add another format to conform - IE would also have to support at least one more format to conform While possible in theory, I do not think it is realistic to assume we will end up in a situation where two major browsers support A and B while the other two support C and D. Market realities - web author and font vendor demand, browser competition - strongly argue for a rational and beneficial outcome. So I claim 2 out of 4 will not only be sufficient but limit or even prevent the kind of arguments that would arise from a requirement for 3 which, while logical, is more likely to result in one or more browser vendor having to implement a format they strongly feel against supporting for whatever reason. Which is sort of how we got here in the first place. I have quibbles with the current draft charter but this is not one of them. And this should not be Interpreted as a corporate intent or desire to support only two formats.
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:16:53 UTC