RE: Including WOFF in ACID3

> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:14 AM
> To: Mikko Rantalainen; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Including WOFF in ACID3
> 
> On Friday, October 22, 2010 9:14 AM Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> I think that we have reached an agreement on this. Dropping TTF
> requirement could mean either adding a font resource to the test in an
> alternative format (WOFF) so that both formats remain optional and a
> browser supporting either one of those could pass the test (as Sylvain
> proposed), or removing the test in question altogether.
> 
> What is the next step?

You don't have an agreement since an update to the text requires your
'we' to include all browser vendors and both co-authors. Given that it's 
been explicitly stated and explained that it is not a goal for the test 
to reflect the current standards or practices, the reasonable next step
is to move on. We have plenty of testcases to think about for the actual
spec already.