- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:32:26 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:00 AM > To: Sylvain Galineau > Cc: www-font@w3.org > Subject: Re: Including WOFF in ACID3 > > Also sprach Sylvain Galineau: > > > The current test loads this font as a raw TTF only. It would seem > > appropriate for the test to be updated with a WOFF version of the > > test font i.e. instead of just: > > > > @font-face { font-family: "AcidAhemTest"; src: url(font.ttf); } > > > > ...the test rule would be: > > > > @font-face { font-family: "AcidAhemTest"; src: url(font.woff), > url(font.ttf); } > > I don't support this change. I think there's a value to keeping things > stable. Errors should be corrected, but -- in general, unless there > are obvious reasons -- I don't think features should be added or > removed. > Aslo, by making the proposed change, it becomes possible to pass Acid3 > without supporting ttf. We could end up in a situation where browser x > support ttf only and browser y support woff only, but both of them > pass Acid3. As a result, interoperability would suffer. First off, I don't see why a browser that only loaded WOFF and SVG Fonts should fail this part of the test. That's completely arbitrary. Second, can you point to a standard that requires TTF support ? Claiming implicitly or otherwise that not supporting TTF violates a standard is false. >From a standard standpoint you have agreed to the Web Fonts WG Charter [1]: # WebFont conformance specification # ...[snip]... WOFF will be the required format for compliance, the others being # optional. Thus a browser that only supports WOFF will be conformant. Yet it will fail this part of ACID3. WOFF is also the only web font format today with support from all browser vendors, a large number of font vendors and web authors. It will likely see far more use than raw fonts. (Otherwise it wouldn't have been invented in the first place...) Not supporting it in ACID3 makes the latter less relevant for its users by checking for support for a feature they don't use. (Granted, it's not the only one such case in the test...) Last, the current ACID3 @font-face test doesn't establish cross-browser interoperability at all. IE9 passes this part of the test because Ahem is Installable. But non-installable TTFs will not load in IE i.e. our passing the test doesn't establish that any TTF that loads in Opera will load in IE. > > I'm happy to add WOFF to a future Acid test, though. > > Cheers, > > -h&kon > Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª > howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/WebFonts/charter.html
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 18:33:01 UTC