On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com> wrote: > 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. > Sorry, but to be frank a system like this --- or "2 of 4" --- is just going to trash the credibility of a Fonts WG before it even gets started. It's painfully obvious to the casual observer that this is designed to allow "success" without achieving real interoperability, so one will quite reasonably ask what is the point of creating or participating in the group, and any recommendation of this form will be treated with disdain unless the vendor is already predisposed to follow it. To be successful, a Fonts WG needs to recommend one or more formats that every browser should support. If it fails, so be it, but don't set it up to fail. There should be other deliverables too --- for example, a convenient mechanism for access control that works with the recommended format(s), for authors and font vendors who want that --- but they're of secondary importance. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 20:41:20 UTC