  Re: New work on fonts at W3C  From: Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:06:48 -0400
Message-ID:
<7c2a12e20906241606t28614ff3x902d777ce774f682@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir"
<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Brad Kemper
<brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>,
www-style@w3.org On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Robert
O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > This means fragmenting
the EOT format into EOT-without-rootstrings, > EOT-without-
compression, EOT-full, etc. In particular, if some browsers only
> support EOT-without-rootstrings but font vendors require their
fonts to have > rootstrings, nothing much has been gained except
confusion (and perhaps an > opportunity has been lost).  Why
would font foundries be okay with Ascender's proposal, but not
EOT minus RootString plus CORS?  > Echoing what John D said
earlier, I'm personally comfortable with Ascender's > proposal,
and I'd support shipping it in a fut