- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 02:34:40 +0200
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 7:59:38 PM, Håkon wrote: HWL> I don't support this change. I think there's a value to keeping things HWL> stable. Errors should be corrected, but -- in general, unless there HWL> are obvious reasons -- I don't think features should be added or HWL> removed. Hac Acid3 been changed at all since it was first released? HWL> Aslo, by making the proposed change, it becomes possible to pass Acid3 HWL> without supporting ttf. We could end up in a situation where browser x HWL> support ttf only and browser y support woff only, but both of them HWL> pass Acid3. As a result, interoperability would suffer. The number of browsers supporting woff is greater than the number supporting ttf at this point, no? -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 13:21:17 UTC