On Oct 17, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Amanda Walker wrote:
Agreed--and I'll repeat that I don't like eot; I was just surprised
by Dave's reaction (which I now have more insight into :-))
I think Dave may have stated things a bit hyperbolically. But I think
it is true that EOT support in other browsers to some extent
undermines the success of TTF fonts on the Web, just as support for
VML in other browsers would likely undermine SVG to some extent.
Now, at some point a strong enough compatibility argument wins over
the format war argument but it is worthwhile to explore alternatives.
Regards,
Maciej
--Amanda
On Oct 17, 2008 9:33 PM, "Maciej Stachowiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Hyatt wrote: > On Oct 17, 2008,
at 4:58 PM, Peter Kasting wrote...
Some of the proposals there sound really interesting.
1) Detect when known unusually-encoded EOT fonts are used, and
convert text in that font on-the-fly to Unicode. This has the
advantage that features like "find in page" and copy/paste will work
correctly; apparently they normally do not when the font is encoded
in a way that doesn't match the server-stated text encoding.
2) Restrict EOT support to a hardcoded list of fonts and websites,
in the the cases where we know the compatibility issues are a
significant adoption barrier.
I think either of these would be better than full-fledged EOT
support and I would tentatively say that #1 could lead to a better
overall user experience.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
