- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:29:23 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: "I would like to remind Bert and others that EOT remains a Microsoft-only technology, and will likely remain so regardless of its status as a W3C standard." What's your basis for the second part of this statement? I for one have been looking very extensively in how to implement both authoring and viewing support for EOT in a non-Microsoft context. Given that the spec has only briefly been public, and not yet approved as a standard, it's not surprising that it is an MS-only technology today. "If EOT is important, and if it is so easy to address EOT shortcomings, then why hasn't MS done anything about it in the last 10 years or so that its been around?" Nobody asked or cared, because during the last 10 years it was indeed an MS-only technology. Even MS had all but abandoned it. It took the "threat" of bare font files on web servers to cause Microsoft to consider opening up their formerly proprietary EOT tech, and to cause Adobe and most of the rest of the font vendor community to embrace EOT. BTW, apologies for the belated reply. I have been travelling the last couple of weeks. Cheers, T
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 09:13:02 UTC