- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:51:05 -0400
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:41 AM Dave Crossland wrote: > > As I recall, "WOFF will be the required format for compliance, the > others being optional." was added to the spec when Microsoft was > playing hardball and refusing to do TTF fonts. > > Now that MSIE *does* TTF, how can we add TTF to the specs alongside > WOFF? With my chair of the WebFonts WG hat on - we have all agreed and approved the charter for the WG. By joining the WebFont WG as an Invited Expert, you made a commitment to abide by the W3C Process Document and participation conditions described in the WebFonts WG charter. Any work related to TTF is out of scope for this WG. > > Clever use of TTF, Unicode-Range and transparent GZIP may outperform > WOFF for very large fonts, so I'd like to see TTF standardised > alongside WOFF. If you have real facts to back up your claims and/or know a way to improve WOFF, please bring them to the attention of the WebFonts WG. Regards, Vladimir
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 07:53:55 UTC