- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:35:43 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote:
> TAJ> Is CWT new enough to be restricted by this,
>
> Yes
>
> TAJ> or is the fact that it's
> TAJ> just a reinterpretation of an existing format enough to let it slide?
>
> Let it slide meaning the WG would work on it? No, its no longer in scope.
>
> Previously it was proposed that both formats would be in scope, and
> the WG would pick a winner when writing the conformance
> requirements. That effectively meant that the spec development
> effort would be split, and the eventual outcome, even if widely
> predicted, still uncertain.
Indeed. Thanks goes to W3C staff for finding consensus around WOFF. As
a result, the web will be a better place; for browser vendors, web
site developers, and font vendors it will be a more predictable place.
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 16:36:18 UTC