On 16/11/2018 12:39, Xidorn Quan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, at 11:12 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Fonts Working Group
https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/webfonts-2018-ac.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Oct/0015.html
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, at 11:12 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
>
> Web Fonts Working Group
> https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/webfonts-2018-ac.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Oct/0015.html
>
> This is proposing a new work it
The W3C is proposing a revised charter for:
Web Fonts Working Group
https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/webfonts-2018-ac.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Oct/0015.html
This is proposing a new work item for the group, Progressive Font
Enrichment, to allow progressive dow
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:31:15 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> It sounds to me that it's not generally true that autohinters can replace
> hinting. At least not yet.
>
> What would be interesting is if we could enable an autohinter in Firefox
> and use that in cases when we are sent a font which doesn
On 2012-10-17 2:31 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
What would be interesting is if we could enable an autohinter in Firefox
and use that in cases when we are sent a font which doesn't contain hints
(is the performance overhead, if any, acceptable?)
I don't have numbers, but I run my Linux desktop with
On Oct 17, 2012 11:20 AM, "Zack Weinberg" wrote:
>
> On 2012-10-17 11:05 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
>>
>> AFAICS, the latest stable release is currently 2.4.10; do you know when
>> 2.4.11 is expected?
>
>
> Afraid not; we should probably ask Werner.
It sounds to me that it's not generally true that
On 2012-10-17 11:05 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
AFAICS, the latest stable release is currently 2.4.10; do you know when
2.4.11 is expected?
Afraid not; we should probably ask Werner.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://li
On 17/10/12 14:17, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On 2012-10-17 4:07 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Until quite recently the FreeType autohinter did a very bad job on a
surprising number of popular webfonts - rendering letters in the same
word
with inconsi
On 2012-10-17 4:07 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Until quite recently the FreeType autohinter did a very bad job on a
surprising number of popular webfonts - rendering letters in the same word
with inconsistent perceptual x-height, for instance.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Until quite recently the FreeType autohinter did a very bad job on a
> surprising number of popular webfonts - rendering letters in the same word
> with inconsistent perceptual x-height, for instance.
What kind of fonts? Bicameral or other?
On 2012-10-16 9:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> (Aside: In a way, it's rather sad how much engineering effort is put
> into compressing TrueType hints, when the reason for sending TrueType
> hints over the wire is that Microsoft's font rasterizer's are so
> backwards that they still need hints even t
On 2012-10-16 9:42 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
(Aside: In a way, it's rather sad how much engineering effort is put
into compressing TrueType hints, when the reason for sending TrueType
hints over the wire is that Microsoft's font rasterizer's are so
backwards that they still need hints even though
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> I don't think you need to be concerned that the Web Fonts WG is likely to
> define a new, incompatible "WOFF 2.0" format without addressing this aspect.
OK great. (No need for a charter comment based on my previous email then.)
--
Henri Siv
On 16/10/12 14:42, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Fonts Working Group.
For more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0016.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/WebFonts/draf
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Fonts Working Group.
> For more details, see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0016.html
> http://www.w3.org/2012/06/WebFonts/draft-charter-ac.html
>
> Mozilla has t
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Fonts Working Group.
For more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0016.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/WebFonts/draft-charter-ac.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Monday, Octob
16 matches
Mail list logo
