On Apr 11, 3:23 am, Boris Zbarsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think the W3C will put its credibility at serious risk if it > > publishes a Recommendation for a DRM format > > Of course it also puts its credibility at risk if it publishes a > Recommendation > for something that UAs cannot implement for legal reasons.
Do you think the EOT submission has legal problems? > In any case, there are credibility issues here no matter what. See > <http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a>. Not seen this - fascinating reading, thanks for pointing it out :-) > > Treating draft versions of standards, even ISO ones, as final versions > > to bring software to users faster is not a disaster > > It can be if the draft becomes widely-enough deployed that it becomes a > de-facto > standard. This is especially a problem if the draft is unclear or > self-contradictory and a particular implementation's quirks become de-facto > standard. Then everyone else has to reverse-engineer, defeating the entire > point of having a standards organization. My understanding of CSS2 and MSIE is that everyone else did not reverse-engineer its quirks and did not elect MS as the standard setter, despite that IE is 90%+ of browsers in use. > > because software is so easily upgraded. > > You mean browsers? They're not _that_ easily upgraded. See the IE6 usage > figures. And content is nearly impossibly to upgrade on any sort of large > scale. I meant very generally that software is more upgradeable than hardware, and leading technology companies routinely implement draft hardware standards. Wireless networking protocols are a recent example. > > 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. > > For "useful" web standards (of which @font-face might well be one), yes. :-) > This is not to say that @font-face shouldn't be implemented, if the legal > issues > and such are resolved. But to be honest, saying "there's a W3C spec that says > so" just doesn't mean much nowadays. I guess I'm saying "There's now three web browsers that do so, let's not get left behind"... Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
