RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:45 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Håkon Wium Lie; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> 
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > > Note that @font-face is just as optional as TTF or WOFF support, or,
> > > indeed, CSS support, or HTML support. Browser vendors pick what
> they
> > > want to implement. No technology can be mandated; it's a free
> market.
> > > All we can do is check that once you try to support a technology,
> you
> > > actually do so in a manner that is consistent with that
> technology's
> > > specification. You cannot mandate that WOFF be implemented. The
> market
> > > decides that.
> >
> > No more than you can mandate that TTF be implemented.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> 
> > The market decides that as well. So why should one be tested and not
> the
> > other?
> 
> At the time the test was written, there was no WOFF.

I understand that. This was then. 

Given the confusion for some, I want to reemphasize that the proposal
is *NOT* to replace TTF with WOFF. The proposal is to have ACID3 let
a browser that supports WOFF pass this part of the test the same way
a browser that supports TTF does.

> 
> 
> > Not only has the market decided but the more relevant part of the
> market
> > - the people who license fonts - are largely in favor of WOFF. So I
> > don't quite understand how that is an argument to leave WOFF out.
> 
> It was not intended to be an argument either way.

Fair enough. So you have no issue with adding WOFF as proposed ?