(no subject)

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_00=-2.599
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: bart.w3.org 1N0vH6-0007aa-1e a12c31204e5d1f75c0f2e54104d1e20e
X-Original-To: www-font@w3.org
Subject: Re: Next step?

On Thursday, October 22, 2009, 5:04:33 AM, John wrote:

JH> So it seems to me that the question to ask when considering possible 
JH> conformance requirements is not 'What might people possibly agree to 
JH> based on what they've already done?' -- which seems to be the case for
JH> any-2-of-4 -- but 'In what direction do we with to steer the ship on 
JH> which we are all travelling?'

JH> I'm still waiting for the reasoning that explains how any-2-of-4 acts 
JH> like any kind of rudder.

To continue the analogy, there is a light hand on the rudder and an appreciation for where on the shore the tides and currents are most likely to land us.

Stepping back from analogy land, it seems a little premature to say "ok, everyone who implemented font linking so far: thanks, but none of your work counts unless you do this new thing".

Of course, if we can indeed say that, it makes things clearer. And there is precedent for a single required format delivering good interop. CSS2 required no one format (this was in the middle of the PFR-vs-OT war) and did not get any interop in HTML/CSS implementations. SVG 1.0 required one mandatory format (and allowed others) with the result that most implementations supported it.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:52:09 UTC