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: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:35:21 +0000
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E280F1FB2@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:30 AM
> To: Mikko Rantalainen; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> On Wednesday, October 20, 2010 4:48 AM Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> >
> > I agree that TTF support is not required by any spec in 2004.
> And the same is true today, in 2010.
> > ACID 3 should not be retroactively changed
> > from the original "year 2004 specifications only" rule.
> >
> I am not aware of any such rule. The test in question was added in
> early 2008.

The ACID3 authors picked a cut-off date: in order for a feature to be 
tested, the relevant standard spec had to be stable - CR or higher, I 
think - by 2004 or earlier. For something developed in 2007 and released in 
early 2008 it means browser vendors had at least 3 years to implement the 
relevant spec. 

I'm not sure why Mikko thinks this is strictly relevant here, however, since 
no spec - in 2004, before 2004 or after 2004 - ever required TTF support for 
@font-face. I think what's being said instead is that ACID3 reflects the state 
of the world as it was in 2008 and that's that. Back then the only cross-browser 
font format available to test @font-face support was TTF. 

What I find truly objectionable to this specific part of the test is that it 
doesn't even check font fallback which is a fundamental aspect of the feature. 
Thus IE6 only fails this part of ACID3 on file format support grounds. That's 
not exactly impressive or relevant to web authors. Even 2008 web authors. 

Oh well.
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 20:36:01 UTC

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