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: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:48:28 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E280807A7@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:44 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: John Hudson; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> Also sprach Sylvain Galineau:
>  > Please. You're causing the discussion by objecting on dubious
> grounds. The
>  > change is trivial: change one single line, serve one more file.
> The proposed change would mean that Acid3 no longer tests:
>    does the browser support installable TTF webfonts?
> but rather:
>    does the browser support either installable TTF webfonts or WOFF?

Which is exactly what you want if you intend to measure the kind of 
real-world interop that matters to web authors. The number of web sites
who can serve TTFs only is both pretty limited and restricted in their
choice of fonts.
A logical consequence of your reasoning is that you'd prefer *adding* a
separate WOFF test. But then current Opera releases would fail it. Are 
you OK with that ? I think this would actually be more relevant as more 
and more high-quality fonts are licensed as WOFF/EOT. Thus lack of WOFF 
support in a modern browser is going to be increasingly more significant 
for authors than any TTF support it may offer. So it might be worth testing 
it on its own.

But given that you'd prefer to keep testing a single format, real-world 
interop is clearly of little concern here. Given that no standard 
conformance criteria requires TTF support this is simply your own 
arbitrary preference at this point. Preference which happens to conflict 
with the charter of this WG, charter that you've accepted. 

I understand why you're trying to grasp for a coherent position here.
I only see a deeper and deeper hole so far. (But I am quite confident
you can dig deeper than I'll ever think possible...:) )

> That's a semantic change, and it's not trivial. A similar change in
> vector graphics test could change (say) "does the browser support
> SVG?" to "does the browser support either SVG or VML?". Clearly,
> knowing which format is supported is valuable.

It is valuable. But not as valuable as knowing that a browser can load 
the same kind of @font-face rule authors must write to use web fonts 
in all browsers. The latter at least test the @font-face font fallback 
needed to enable web fonts for the largest number of web users. 

I agree it is a semantic change. But it is also an improvement over the current
test which is increasingly irrelevant in practice. The number of authors
who use the "bulletproof" @font-face syntax pattern already far outstrips that 
of authors who can get away with a lone TTF.

>  > So the next version will use WOFF, yes ?
> I think it makes sense for a future Acid test to test WOFF. Best to
> get to CR first, though.

Since ACID3 included TTF testing without any CR anywhere requiring it I'm 
quite confident WOFF can be in ACID4 given that most browsers will support
it by then. Even, maybe, Opera.

>  > > One of the strengths of the Acid tests it that they can test
>  > > comprehensive designs which require the crossing of organizational
>  > > borders.
>  >
>  > They can, but it's rather arguable whether they actually do. ACID3
>  > was a collection of individual bug repros with a score that became
>  > a proxy for conformance through clever marketing and general
>  > misunderstanding. Of course now that IE effectively passes it its
>  > authors downplay its importance.
> I haven't seen anyone downplay its importance. It's an important test
> and I'm glad that Microsoft is making efforts to pass.

When a test is both important and relevant, does its author respond to a 
trivial change request with suggestions to spend less time worrying about 
such 'old tests' ?
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 17:49:04 UTC

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