RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On


> Currently, browsers who do not implement WOFF and who do implement TTF
> pass ACID3 tests. Changing the test so they no longer pass isn't a
> good idea.

That was *never* the suggestion. It has been suggested that a WOFF reference
be *added* to the list of resources in ACID3's @font-face. Thus a browser
that does not support WOFF would still pass the test.


> Currently no browsers implements WOFF but not TTF. I don't see any
> browsers cutting off the wide amount of already deployed sites using
> only TTF.

How wide is that ? Do you have data ? And how wide will it remain given
a format supported by all browsers that is also supported by a plurality
of font vendors ?

 
> As Håkon said, interoperability for installable ttf fonts is valuable
> and should be preserved.

No one said it was not valuable. I do not, however, see how 'preserving'
raw font interoperability should exclude encouraging WOFF interoperability.

Never mind that TTF interop excludes one major browser - IE, until IE9 ships -
and will thereafter be limited to installable TTFs. 


> It is good that WOFF is included in the ACID3 test, but not if it
> *removes* ttf from the test.

That was not the suggestion.

 
> Dropping TTF from ACID4 is a different matter.

Why ?