On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir < Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > Web authors would have different tools in their possession, and I don’t > think that font vendors would insist on having it implemented one particular > way vs. another. > That's good. So authors would have to include rootstrings in their fonts for IE compatibility. But other browsers would ignore the rootstring and let the author control access with same-origin + CORS. That could be confusing for authors, and I'm not sure how font vendors would react to browsers deliberately ignoring rootstrings. It seems to me that authors targeting existing IE versions have to use a tool to generate EOT fonts with the right rootstrings, no matter what. That tool could automatically generate fonts conforming to Ascender's proposal (or other possible proposals) at the same time. So if you're stuck with rootstring hassles, then the extra work to generate additional font files is minimal; mostly just adding additional clauses to your @font-face rules. So it seems to me that eliminating that extra work by supporting EOT in all browsers is not worth it, since we would probably lose the opportunity to converge on something simpler for the long run, like Ascender's proposal. (The MTX issue is orthogonal, given it could be added to Ascender's proposal if wanted.) 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 Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:06:29 UTC