RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of John Hudson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:02 AM
> To: www-font@w3.org
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: 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.

Note that this particular test has no effect on the numeric score proper.
It only causes a failure in rendering the result page i.e. the failure to
load Ahem.ttf causes a white 'X' on a fuchsia background to show up
in the top-right corner. 

Also note that at this point it is unlikely that any browser vendor - 
including Microsoft with IE9 - will drop support for this, however
'obliged' they may have felt to support this format as a result of 
the test itself.

Thus the only productive goal of updating this would be to improve the
way this particular feature is tested. As the test's authors do not seem
to consider this a goal or priority for this version of the test, I think
it is time to move on.

Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 20:42:22 UTC