Re: Including WOFF in ACID3

2010-10-19 20:24 EEST: Levantovsky, Vladimir:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:47 AM Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>> I have to say that no CR state or better in 2004 said that 
>> @font-face must support TTF. Regardless of this, I think ACID 3
>> should not be changed for this.
> 
> Sounds like the double standard treatment here. Is it appropriate? If
> we want to be consistent, the test in question must either be removed
> or changed.

I agree that TTF support is not required by any spec in 2004. However,
the reason I think the ACID 3 should keep the TTF test and TTF test only
(not accept EOT or WOFF) is that in 2004 spec world, the TTF test was
the only one that could have been implemented by all vendors, even in
theory. WOFF did not exists at that time and EOT was (and still is?)
covered by patents preventing other but MS from implementing it. If ACID
3 has any @font-face test at all for 2004 standards compliance, it
should be TTF as it's now. ACID 3 should not be retroactively changed
from the original "year 2004 specifications only" rule.

As a result, I think possible choices are TTF only or no @font-face test
at all.

-- 
Mikko