- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:16:37 -0700
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <ED56675D-318A-431B-B851-07D4B1D30008@gmail.com>
On Jun 24, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:47 PM Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:52 AM, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:19 PM Brad Kemper wrote: >>>> No, but that won't change until Microsoft starts supporting the >>>> same formats as Firefox, Safari, and Webkit. [...] >>> Why is that someone has always have do what someone else has done, >>> even if there is no consensus for it. >> Because there is near consensus among implenters about the value of >> supporting raw file formats, with the one major exception being the >> company that is nearly always lagging in standards support (for >> about the last decade anyway). > > You forgot to mention font vendors who do not support raw file format, > so the company you mentioned isn't really a one major exception. I did not forget. You may have noticed that in answering your question about "why do what [implementors have] done" (see quotes above, because that is what we were talking about), I began that sentence with "Because there is near consensus among implementers" (aside from misspelling it the first time). Font vendors are not implementors. I also didn't mention end users, magazine reviewers, and Chinese communist party officials. We all might hope that implementors listen to us and give weight to our arguments, but it is the major implementations that determine the viability of one approach over the other. Everything else falls out from there. Monotype can say they are going to give EOT licenses to everyone, but that doesn't matter much to the users of the other major UA implementations if they don't also support EOT. Looking at a larger group—containing more and more self interested parties— for consensus will virtually ensure that there is none. There is unlikely to be consensus among all font publishers for the decisions all UA implementors take, but there are some font publishers that are today expanding the number and reliability of fonts that can be used in Web site designs (directly, without images, FIR, etc.). And also, by the way, any new format will much less useful until the majority of users have upgraded to a version that supports it. In my experience, IE users are the slowest to upgrade (I still have to deal with about 30% of all my site visitors being on IE6, about the same as all Firefox visitors to my site). So If I want a cross-browser embedded font experience, then for years to come it will be EOT plus whatever the other browsers support (and "raw" fonts have a head start on any new wrapper format). >>> We could be much better off if we get out of the trenches and >>> adopt a position that, as Aryeh said, may not be ideal but can >>> work and would satisfy all parties involved. >> >> Great! Glad to hear that you will now be supporting Daggett's scheme, >> and that Microsoft will be concentrating the @font-face improvement >> on >> supporting regular formats as well as the other implentors are. >> > > Speak for yourself. And you apparently missed the last part of the > sentence, I did say that a solution "would satisfy all parties > involved". Well, if you are going to define "all parties" very broadly, then you will never satisfy all parties. I am an involved party, and your suggestions have not satisfied me to nearly the same extent as John D.'s name-changing proposal. So apparently by saying "would satisfy all parties involved" you mean that it would satisfy you but leave me disappointed. Or perhaps you mean that others should concede major compromises and be satisfied, but you could never do the same. If you think others' compromises can lead to their satisfaction, then why not accept a font-renaming compromise and be satisfied yourself? And why shouldn't Microsoft also try to be satisfied by compromising and offering support for regular font formats? It would be much easier for them to do so than to expect all other UAs to change.
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 16:18:27 UTC