RE: Next step?

Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Vladimir Levantovsky <>:


>It would be logical to expect that the conformance criteria should be one part of the deliverables the Font WG should work on.


If those who will be a part of the working group and thus doing the working have no objection to leaving this as an undefined deliverable, I would rather see things fly or fail there. Plus, the Zeitgeist is changing fast, and positions being expressed today might seem silly or irrelevant six months from now.

Look where we all were only four months ago. No CWT, no WOFF. Nowhere.


And when I see Håkon posting links to demo pages featuring WOFF, well, that’s a welcome surprise.


BTW – I’m still hoping against hope that a way can be found to inject compression back into CWT. The only reason that’s ever been expressed against the possibility of implementing it that way  – outside of IE – is, essentially, that it’s too much work. (Plus a technical foul regarding the W3C Patent Policy.)

Say what? Come again?  Call me a dreamer....







From: [] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:07 AM
Cc: Chris Lilley; Sylvain Galineau;;
Subject: RE: Next step?



An attempt to define the conformance criteria as part of the Fonts WG charter strikes me as odd. I understand the politics and motivation behind it but based on the recent experience of truly collaborative and productive discussions on www-font list I believe that we [i.e. the future Fonts WG] *can* be productive and reach a consensus developing truly interoperable solution and conformance requirements. It would be logical to expect that the conformance criteria should be one part of the deliverables the Font WG should work on.






From: [] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 4:41 PM
Cc: Chris Lilley; Sylvain Galineau;;
Subject: Re: Next step?


On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Richard Fink <> 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
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.

"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 Tuesday, 27 October 2009 14:40:18 UTC