Re: RE: Next step?

This appears to shape the future inside-out to what I was suggesting ;-)

That was, that SVG fonts ought to have more support, support on par with
OTF, because they can do things OTF cannot which useful for new media
typography.

The 2 of 4 issue seems unresolved. I feel that idea doesn't fulfil the
primary need of web authors identified by this lists discussion - to have a
single web font format supported by all of the Big 5 desktop browsers in a
uniform way that proprietary font vendors will not propose to boycott - but
makes it look like the font wg did something to build consensus, by agreeing
to punt the issue of which 2 back to individual browsers.

Requiring WOFF is the only path before the group that fulfils the primary
need.

There are many other needs the group can champion, like richer display and
animated type (svg fonts), font metadata (mame), compatibility with stale
msie (cwt specification and rights clearance), but these appear to be
secondary.

Nevertheless, I am not sure they ought to be tightly bound in the was RF
suggests; these seem orthogonal issues to me.

On 25 Oct 2009, 5:02 PM, "Richard Fink" <rfink@readableweb.com> wrote:

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 an...
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