Re: Including WOFF in ACID3

Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

> 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.

I would be in favour of removing the @font-face test from Acid 3. I 
would rather browser makers be able to claim higher percentage results 
in the test by not having to demonstrate support for @font-face than by 
feeling obliged to support a web font format that has been so 
contentious and around which no consensus was possible.

JH

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 16:02:19 UTC