- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:11:15 +0200
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
* Sylvain Galineau wrote: >Our definitions of coherence differ hugely. First it was backward compatibility >and the conformance of existing devices with a new draft, in complete conflict >with WG process and the explicit disclaimers present in every single CSS spec. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0476.html is the original comment. It states the problem quite clearly and offers a so- lution that's also quite clear. There is nothing about backward compa- tibility in there, so you don't seem to have followed the thread very well. >(This is the Fonts WG mailing list btw [...]) The thread started on www-style and that is where I sent my message to, as I was discussing "css3-fonts" only. Again, this is not a complicated issue, just imagine a non-browser implementation of css3-fonts that has no inherent reason to emulate this browser behavior. Why should it be non-compliant if it does not restrict linking to fonts, or does restrict linking but does not support using "CORS" to lift such restrictions? If you can tell Glenn Adams and the rest of us on www-style, that would be far more helpful than telling us how huge your user base is. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 16:11:42 UTC