Re: Next step?

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 agree, a "2 of 4" requirement just seems pointless. Useful
interoperability requires us to agree on at least one format that will be
required in all UAs. If we can't agree on that, so be it, but we shouldn't
pretend we've achieved something.

I'd prefer a requirement of WOFF and CWT support, while allowing
> support for further formats.
>

CWT in its current form doesn't seem worth implementing. Since EOT files
with rootstrings aren't conforming CWT fonts, Web authors would have to
implement Referer checking for IE users in most CWT deployments. It would
usually be easier for the author to just generate a WOFF file (or TTF file,
if the license allows) and an EOT file with a rootstring and serve them
both.

So unless something changes dramatically, no-one I know at Mozilla would
support a CWT requirement.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]