- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:42:52 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:39 AM Chris Lilley wrote: > > Personally I would be happy to see WOFF required for conformance. If we > can get there, that would be great. > > Earlier discussions had seemed to indicate a desire for even- > handedness, not favouring any one format. In that situation, allowing > support of one format to claim conforance gets us nowhere - IE already > has CWT support by virtue of their EOT support, Opera and Firefox and > Safari already have raw OT/TT support, most SVG implementations already > have SVG font support, and ... the content developer looses. > I think we will be better off as a group if we simply acknowledge the fact that earlier discussions were crippled by the prescribed, limited choice of formats, where one format (raw fonts) was not acceptable for a vast majority of commercial font vendors, and the other one (EOT) was not acceptable to open source community. The expressed desire for even-handedness, not favoring any single format seemed to be a 'politically-correct' way to resolve the conflict of interests and not to favor any *given* format. However, we all seemed to agree that if it is possible to develop a new, better format that would be acceptable to all interested parties including browser vendors, font foundries and web authors - this would be an ideal solution. So, while I agree that allowing to claim conformance to *any* single format gets us nowhere, conformance to *the* single format (e.g. WOFF) will eventually get us exactly where we all want to be. And, if we can agree on two formats that would make the interoperability possible "here and now" - this would be just icing on the cake! Regards, Vlad
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 15:43:28 UTC