RE: Next step?

On Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:50 AM Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > From: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > I believe that the goal of the working group *is* to specify the
> > format(s) that hasn't been shipped yet to promote its implementation
> > and interoperability between browsers. Just because something didn’t
> > happen yet doesn't mean that it shouldn’t happen in the future - this
> > is exactly where the WG efforts would create most value.
> > To the contrary, whatever has already happened is the reality we live
> > with, and while the WG has to consider it in order to enable web
> > authors do what they need to do sooner rather than later, I don’t see
> > the need to simply rubberstamp any of the existing solutions unless it
> > promotes interoperability.
> Rubberstamping is precisely what I have no interest in. Interoperability
> in a relatively distant future should not take precedence over
> interoperability between now and then if it is possible, even if limited
> by legacy implementation issues. Not without detailed considerations of
> said limitations and consulting with authors, at least.

Okay, so we both seem to agree that the major goal of the WG is to develop/finalize/specify technical solutions that promote/enable interoperability in both the near and 'not so' distant future. And, taking into account that we already spent almost two years arguing about it, makes three-to-five-years time horizon for WOFF adoption 'not so distant' in my book (although I would be thrilled to have an "okay solution" for web fonts supported *today*, and a "great solution" for *tomorrow*, relatively speaking).


Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 15:20:43 UTC