Re: Including WOFF in ACID3

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:01 AM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> 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.

Same here.

T

-- 
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
—Abraham Lincoln

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 18:17:58 UTC