RE: Next step?

Thursday, October 22, 2009 Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>:

  >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,

Rather than the "two of four" originally proposed, I would like to propose a
weighted system for determining compliance.
Using these values:

WOFF - 3
CWT - 2
TTF/OTF - 2
SVG - 1

A "score" of 5 would mean compliance.

This would elevate WOFF a notch which, I believe, there is broad consensus
it warrants. And weighting CWT and TTF/OTF at the same level leaves no one
in either "camp" offended. Giving SVG a lower weight is, as it is conversely
with WOFF, simply a reflection of its likely level of usage in view of the
file sizes involved along with the likelihood of implementation in
comparison to the other three. Once again, I believe, there is broad
consensus on this.
A sliding scale of this kind *does* make some value judgments and therefore
fulfills the mandate to - as font designer Dave Crossland posted - "Shape
the future as well as consolidate existing practice". While at the same
time, it leaves the spirit of even-handedness in the original proposal
intact.
Now, measuring compliance in this way might not have precedent, but outside
of the contentiousness surrounding it, I've seen little with precedent in
this whole @font-face business yet.
And so I put the idea out there for your consideration and possible
inclusion in the WG Charter.


Regards,

rich

Received on Sunday, 25 October 2009 17:02:32 UTC