Re: Next step?

Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>> 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... 

But WOFF has only just arrived on the scene, in direct response to 
discussion among the parties and specifically with the intent of 
defining a non-contentious format around which consensus may be formed. 
Unless there is some contention about WOFF of which I am unaware, it is 
the only broadly non-contentious format on offer. It doesn't make sense 
to me to say that if consensus were possible it should have happened by 
now when the only format designed to achieve consensus has only recently 
been put forward.

I think it is selling WOFF short to presume at this stage that the 
conformance requirement should be 'any-2-of-4'. At the very least, the 
consensus potential of WOFF should be seriously explored by the browser 
makers, such that we have the possibility of defining a single required 
format for conformance, which doesn't prevent any number of optional 
formats being supported or, indeed, a 'WOFF-plus-one' conformance 
requirement (although I really don't see the benefit of that).

John Hudson

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:32:10 UTC