W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > October to December 2010

RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:57:44 +0000
To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E28070F5A@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On

> 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.

That was *never* the suggestion. It has been suggested that a WOFF reference
be *added* to the list of resources in ACID3's @font-face. Thus a browser
that does not support WOFF would still pass the test.

> 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.

How wide is that ? Do you have data ? And how wide will it remain given
a format supported by all browsers that is also supported by a plurality
of font vendors ?

> As HÃ¥kon said, interoperability for installable ttf fonts is valuable
> and should be preserved.

No one said it was not valuable. I do not, however, see how 'preserving'
raw font interoperability should exclude encouraging WOFF interoperability.

Never mind that TTF interop excludes one major browser - IE, until IE9 ships -
and will thereafter be limited to installable TTFs. 

> It is good that WOFF is included in the ACID3 test, but not if it
> *removes* ttf from the test.

That was not the suggestion.

> Dropping TTF from ACID4 is a different matter.

Why ?

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 19:58:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:35 UTC