RE: Next step?

> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of John Hudson
 
> It was not, and is not, my intention to belabour this. I only wanted to
> register the opinion, which I suspect will be shared by other font
> developers. We can, of course, avoid the repetition of such opinions by
> limiting the conformance requirement to WOFF. :)

I'd rather see Firefox 3.6 and IE9 support both WOFF and CWT. This would not only address the future, it would deal with what could the significant time window between now and then. Surely, font designers would prefer an outcome that improves the likely demand for their product today, using two formats they are publicly comfortable with ? 

Limiting conformance to a single format that has yet to ship and will do nothing for a majority of users for years to come seems a distant second best choice to a solution as compatible with the present as it can reasonably be so I really don't understand the upside of the Highlander principle - 'there can be only one' - for today's web author. But then I am also trying to put the web author's interests first. They're the ones who will license and deploy fonts on their sites, after all. I'd rather give them all the options they need for web typography to flourish as soon as possible. 

And I'd rather have them and font vendors decide which one of them, if any, is useless rather than Mozilla, Microsoft or the W3C.

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 01:57:08 UTC