On Apr 10, 7:41 am, "David E. Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/9/2008 4:32 PM, Dave wrote: > > > On Apr 9, 10:57 pm, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One way to put it is this: Are you sure enough about this that you'd > >> offer to pay the legal costs if mozilla got sued? I know I certainly > >> wouldn't, no matter if I think the suit would have any basis or not. > > Is Mozilla committed to core web standards like CSS3? > > If it is, and I hope it is, then it has to implement the @font-face > > feature. > > If Mozilla refuses patches that implement font formats in use by other > > browsers, because of DRM FUD, it seems to be turning its back on the > > spirit of the web. What happened to "take back the web"? > > Technically, none of the W3C specifications are standards. W3C is not a > standards-setting organization. W3C publishes specifications that are > called "Recommendation".
I don't intend to be rude, but this seems disingenuous to me; I'll examine it though, because this is interesting for me :-) I welcome your corrections if I am mistaken in the following. Please keep in mind that I'm not a member of any standards bodies or consortia, just as I am not a lawyer, but I hope to understand what is going on here :-) I agree that W3C is not an (inter)national standards-setting organisation - like ANSI or BSI, or ISO - and the specifications that W3C publishes are called "Recommendations." Instead, the W3C is a consortium (name's on the tin) - a formal group of stakeholders who invite public input for their joint activities, and as long as it has credibility with its stakeholders, its Recommendations become 'de facto' standards. The IETFand Unicode are similar 'de facto standard'-setting organisations. It is _very_ common to refer to specifications released by such consortia as "standards," so much so that the W3C website does it themselves. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22w3c+standards%22+OR+%22w3c+standard%22 has nearly 2.5 million hits, http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inurl%3Aw3.org+%22w3c+standards%22+OR+%22w3c+standard%22 has over 5,000. But I didn't say "W3C standards," I said "web standards" - what the W3C was founded to promote through its recommendations: Interoperable web technologies. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=web+standards has w3.org as the second hit with the W3C-authored description, "W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web." The www.w3.org homepage says that "[the W3C] develops interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead the Web to its full potential." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards explains this well. The credibility of the W3C is critically important to its survival, since if it loses its credibility, it will become ignored and fail at its reason for existence. Microsoft has traditionally ignored the W3C, but as the W3C's credibility has increased, Microsoft has found it harder and harder to ignore. I think the W3C will put its credibility at serious risk if it publishes a Recommendation for a DRM format like http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/ - DRM limits the Web from its full potential. > As for CSS3, it is nowhere near ready for be treated as the equivalent > of a standard. Treating draft versions of standards, even ISO ones, as final versions to bring software to users faster is not a disaster because software is so easily upgraded. Apple' reputation for leading innovation is based on doing this - they even do it with hardware specifications. As you say, W3C Recommendations are de facto industry standards. Ultimately, if all major browser developers implement a draft, and ignore the final, the draft becomes the de facto specification. When Apple treats W3C drafts as finals, it invites that happening, because it puts pressure on other browser developers to also do so to remain competitive. If Mozilla want to stay competitive, I feel it ought to implement CSS3 at the same pace other browsers do. Since Safari is shipping the @font- face feature, and I want Mozilla to stay competitive, I want to hire someone to implement it. I understand from http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html that it is a big job and Mozilla doesn't think @font-face is a very important feature. I think its a revolutionary feature, as revolutionary as adding inline images was when the web was new. I'm willing to invest in the development of this feature because I have business models to recoup my cost for that hire. Additionally, if Mozilla doesn't stay competitive, my clients will switch to Safari, and that means they are more likely to stay with or switch to Mac OS X than to GNU/Linux, and that will also hit my bottom line. > CSS2.1 specification... is being delayed because > the test cases have not all been developed yet. Thanks for clarifying the reasons behind the delay :-) > Even if the W3C specifications were formal standards, the Web Fonts > specification would not yet be a standard. Thus, it not true that the > Mozilla organization "has to implement the @font-face feature." Web Fonts are fast becoming a web standard, after a decade of anticipation from many publishers and users. Mozilla was founded and built up a reputation for promoting and innovating around web standards, and it ought to maintain that reputation. > Web Fonts is a CSS3 capability. The unified CSS2.1 specification is > much closer to reaching "Recommendation" status than any part of the > fragmented CSS3 specification. While I too would like to see Web Fonts > implemented, my priority would be to finish implementing all of CSS2.1 > first, which is not yet complete for Mozilla products. I agree Mozilla should spend its money on developing CSS2.1. But I expect my offer to spend my money on developing Web Fonts not to be dismissed, and I hope the patch I'll get written will be accepted :-) Thanks again for taking the time to discuss all this, Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
