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

RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:45:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010142143410.5810@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > 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.

Correct.


> The market decides that as well. So why should one be tested and not the 
> other?

At the time the test was written, there was no WOFF.


> 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.

It was not intended to be an argument either way.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 21:46:02 UTC

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