Re: Including WOFF in ACID3

2010-10-20 23:35 EEST: Sylvain Galineau:
> The ACID3 authors picked a cut-off date: in order for a feature to be 
> tested, the relevant standard spec had to be stable - CR or higher, I 
> think - by 2004 or earlier. For something developed in 2007 and released in 
> early 2008 it means browser vendors had at least 3 years to implement the 
> relevant spec. 

As I wrote earlier in this thread:
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1200301306&count=1 - criteria 5

> I'm not sure why Mikko thinks this is strictly relevant here, however, since 
> no spec - in 2004, before 2004 or after 2004 - ever required TTF support for 
> @font-face.

My point was that for specifications in CR or higher in 2004, only thing
that was defined was @font-face. It did not define any specific font
format. However, at that time (and the time ACID 3 was created), TTF was
the only font format that could have been implemented by all vendors. As
such, I guess it makes some sense to use TTF as the baseline for the
font format to use for 2004 "standards" (specifications).

Considering that the original rule says:
> The behaviour expected by the test must be justifiable using only
> standards that were in the Candidate Recommendation stage or better
> in 2004. This includes JavaScript (ECMAScript 3), many W3C specs,
> RFCs, etc.

I think that the real fix would be to drop the TTF requirement because
it cannot fulfill the requirement to "be justifiable using only
standards that were in the Candidate Recommendation stage or better in
2004". At least, if we think that sentence to mean that if the CR or
higher spec does not mention TTF, then TTF does not exists.

-- 
Mikko

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkzBjg4ACgkQFNzRB1YxaOvn9gCgnf6mMkvLsnmK3fj0DNH7X8X3
Wt0AnRcDdlrf4zu8NlS2BdyU7uMTIB5T
=O57w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----