- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:38:04 +1300
- To: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "bert@w3.org" <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <11e306600810191538y4ff78e85wbb78251de52c6eb9@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote: > Silverlight 2 is in fact different, and I think I can explain how > different. I am not sure however why this argument would have any value > (beyond being embarrassing for Microsoft, which has already been > established). > > > > If there is an existing implementation that is different from what is a new > standard being proposed, why would it affect the proposal? > > When designing any new feature, it's useful to examine other solutions in the space; this helps clarify requirements as well as the merits of possible solutions. So I think it's important to understand why Silverlight does not require or even support EOT, especially since it's the chief EOT proponent's main Web platform initiative. [The explanation given so far, that Silverlight content does not quality for EOT because it's 'applications' not 'documents', makes little sense given the modern Web has pretty much erased that distinction. Would you prevent use of EOT by GMail or argue that GMail not an application? Also, that this explanation emerged long after the question was raised, which was long after Silverlight was designed, suggests that it may be a rationalization rather than an explanation.] In particular, one of the claims made by EOT supporters is that supporting font files served as bare TTF would devastate font vendors, therefore there is a hard requirement on IE to *not* support bare TTF. I think we should understand why Silverlight is exempt from this requirement. It's especially important to clear this point up, since many people fear Silverlight is treated differently because Microsoft favours its proprietary platforms over open ones. Perhaps you can agree that this fear is not irrational [1]. [1] http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Sunday, 19 October 2008 22:38:41 UTC