- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:20:25 +0000
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
By '...IE9 and Firefox support it', I meant WOFF of course. > -----Original Message----- > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Sylvain Galineau > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 1:02 PM > To: Ian Hickson; Levantovsky, Vladimir > Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; www-font@w3.org > Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3 > > > From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] > > > > Note that @font-face is just as optional as TTF or WOFF support, or, > > indeed, CSS support, or HTML support. Browser vendors pick what they > > want > > to implement. No technology can be mandated; it's a free market. All > we > > can do is check that once you try to support a technology, you > actually > > do > > so in a manner that is consistent with that technology's > specification. > > You cannot mandate that WOFF be implemented. The market decides that. > > No more than you can mandate that TTF be implemented. The market > decides > that as well. So why should one be tested and not the other ? It only > reflects the fact that TTF support was all there was at the time ACID3 > was released. A few years later, IE9 and Firefox support it. The WebKit > browsers are working on it and I'm comfortable assuming Opera will as > well. > > Not only has the market decided but the more relevant part of the > market > - the people who license fonts - are largely in favor of WOFF. So I > don't > quite understand how that is an argument to leave WOFF out. >
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 20:21:09 UTC