- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:23:54 +0200
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Hi, On 14 October 2010 09:51, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > 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. I thought we were talking about the spec, not the charter - please accept my apologies for this mistake. I expect not, but I can't tell from looking at W3C process documents: Can the Charter be changed? Currently, browsers who do not implement WOFF and who do implement TTF pass ACID3 tests. Changing the test so they no longer pass isn't a good idea. Currently no browsers implements WOFF but not TTF. I don't see any browsers cutting off the wide amount of already deployed sites using only TTF. As HÃ¥kon said, interoperability for installable ttf fonts is valuable and should be preserved. It is good that WOFF is included in the ACID3 test, but not if it *removes* ttf from the test. Dropping TTF from ACID4 is a different matter. >> 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. There was a discussion about this after John Daggett's meeting in LA, which I recall you being there for; I have no further information at this time. Cheers Dave
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 14:24:58 UTC