- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:59:08 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Ricardo Esteves <ricardo@outrasfontes.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 22, 2009, 1:13:27 AM, Robert wrote: ROC> Dealing with the legacy IE users is a separate problem that the ROC> Fonts WG can do nothing about. The best thing the Fonts WG can do ROC> is recommend a single font format that browsers should support ROC> going forward. Then authors can use that and, if they wish, ROC> support legacy IE in some other manner. Given this discussion thread, i have ammended the draft charter to note that this is an area of disagreement and to ask for feedback from other reviewers. http://www.w3.org/2009/08/WebFonts/charter.html There appeared to be consensus on www-font that requiring at least two formats gave a fair and even playing field and maximised interoperability, but recent discussions have questioned this. An alternative 'pick one format and require it for compliance' has been suggested; feedback on these conformance requirements is encouraged. -- 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 10:59:16 UTC