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: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:02:10 +0000
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E28778AA6@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:14 AM
> To: Mikko Rantalainen; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> On Friday, October 22, 2010 9:14 AM Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> >
> > I think that the real fix would be to drop the TTF requirement
> because
> > it cannot fulfill the requirement to "be justifiable using only
> > standards that were in the Candidate Recommendation stage or better
> in
> > 2004". At least, if we think that sentence to mean that if the CR or
> > higher spec does not mention TTF, then TTF does not exists.
> >
> I think that we have reached an agreement on this. Dropping TTF
> requirement could mean either adding a font resource to the test in an
> alternative format (WOFF) so that both formats remain optional and a
> browser supporting either one of those could pass the test (as Sylvain
> proposed), or removing the test in question altogether.
> What is the next step?

You don't have an agreement since an update to the text requires your
'we' to include all browser vendors and both co-authors. Given that it's 
been explicitly stated and explained that it is not a goal for the test 
to reflect the current standards or practices, the reasonable next step
is to move on. We have plenty of testcases to think about for the actual
spec already.
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 06:03:15 UTC

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