RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On


> So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it will take the Web Fonts Working
> Group's WebFont Conformance Specification to make WOFF more than
> another optional format.

It always takes more than a spec to make something be implemented.
But there certainly is value in implementors agreeing on one common
format as being required. Wouldn't it be silly for them to agree to 
that if they have no intention to support it ? 

Moreover, given that having to manage raw/EOT versions of everything 
was considered a pain in the arse by so many sites and authors, it 
should stand to reason that making all formats equally optional could
require authors to license, deploy and manage 2+ versions of every font
and/or browser vendors to support 2+ formats. Options and competition 
are great at discovering solutions but agreeing on a common solution is 
also super-helpful in spreading the underlying feature/technology. It's 
called a standard, right ?

Or let's put it this way: if everything is optional, why shouldn't IE just 
Keep shipping support for EOT only ? From TypeKit to Adobe and Monotype, 
you can license fonts in that format already. That's where we were before 
WOFF. If the pre-WOFF status quo and raw TTFs are enough for you then you 
don't really need to change anything to your habits and preferences. For a 
lot of people though - including web authors, browser and font vendors - it 
wasn't so great.

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 20:17:55 UTC