Re: font proposal bogosities

On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Thomas Lord wrote:
> Refutations:
> 1. A requirement that a browser simply
>   decide to not render with a given font
>   has the fatal flaw that it contributes
>   nothing at all to interoperability.
>   Consider a hypothetical world in which EOT
>   is Recommended and UAs "MUST" not render if
>   the root string is mis-matched.
>   In that world, consider a browser which,
>   nevertheless, renders the font in such a circumstance.
>   Interoperability is not broken.
>   Indeed, refusing to render a font in cases
>   like that is a bug:  programs can not accurately
>   decide whether or not the user has the legal right
>   to render with the font.
>   And that bug is a bad bug: it can present a
>   threat to life and limb when a life critical
>   resource goes un-rendered in a time of desparate
>   need.

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I don't think you can argue in  
general that requirements NOT to render something can't be valid  
interoperability requirements. For example, CSS requires that content  
with "display: none" set is not rendered. Web pages rely on this for  
correct presentation. So I don't think your general argument holds.


Received on Saturday, 27 June 2009 01:11:06 UTC