On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's important to recognize that if you flip the EOT switch, you're
going to end up using EOT over TTF in many cases. In fact if IE
*does* in end up skipping TTF files properly, the font you get in
Chrome would actually depend on the specification order in the @font-
face rule (you'd just end up randomly using EOT sometimes and TTF
other times). You'd be the only vendor subject to this issue by
supporting both formats.
Unless we can convince Microsoft to support TTF. Or other vendors
end up supporting EOT. Or we write some crazy parser hack that
prefers TTF over EOT when both are available (ugh).
It's not clear to me whether "support EOT to make it easier to gain
marketshare in India and thus provide an alternative browser where
authors can deploy TTF" is a better long-term bet for the success of
TTF than "try to convince Microsoft to support TTF in IE".
Microsoft will never support TTF in IE (for HTML at least).
Apparently it's ok for Silverlight but not for HTML.
I think it's worth thinking about how to get Web site compatibility in
India without supporting EOT. See some of the discussion in the bug
for ideas.
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
