- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:07:31 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hakon, " Creating a new Fonts WG will steal the thunder from the current implementations." I wouldn't expect you, of all people, to argue that respecting the 'thunder' of current implementations should be a standardization criteria. Or does that apply only when those existing implementations are not Microsoft's ? "If, say, web fonts are successful in five years, let's reconsider." Why should we wait five more years ? All browsers support web fonts in one way or another. Why should the web accept five more years of font format fragmentation ? " If Microsoft does not make that interoperability commitment, they should not be rewarded with a new Font WG." Please. This is not and should not be about Microsoft or any individual browser vendor's own narrow interests. Interoperability is yours to uphold too. Hundreds of millions of users run an EOT-compatible browser. Why should they get screwed ? Why is interop with their browser worth so much less than interop with your own ? Font vendors, browser vendors and web designers should all be involved in figuring out a solution. Not just you or Mozilla or Microsoft. We accept it's not up to us to pick the outcome; and if that means dumping EOT, so be it. Maybe, just maybe, you should accept this is not up to you either. Thanks. See you on the other DL.
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 23:08:15 UTC