W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: restarting discussion

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:25:14 +0200
Message-ID: <19017.12602.599180.287987@opera.com>
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Also sprach Thomas Lord:

 > 1. Proposals to "xor a few bits" are wrong.

 >   Such a proposal is anathema to W3Cs mission because
 >   it gratuitously proliferates font formats for the 
 >   specific goal of breaking interoperability between
 >   programs.

The only reason we're having this discussion is that some people find
interoperability too dangerous. Xor-ing bits, adding compression, or
adding metadata are equally disruptive for interoperability.

 > 3. Proposals to steamroll Microsoft are wrong.
 > 
 >   A proposal makes the rounds to standardize on TT and OT
 >   over the objections of Microsoft and in spite of a 
 >   likely outcome in which IE does not conform to the standard.

I havn't heard anyone making this argument. The CSS Webfonts
specification is format-agnostic today, and I think it should remain
so in the future. 

 > 4. Proposals for "root strings" are wrong.

Agreed.

 > What are we left with?
 > 
 > A "wrapper format" can be constructed which can 
 > embed TT and OT, bundling such font files with 
 > arbitrary, HTML-formatted meta-data for user 
 > consumption.  By convention, font vendors can use
 > that meta-data to include licensing information in 
 > an accessible format, perhaps using ccREL and RDFa
 > to make the licensing information machine readable.

This is a slippery slope into DMCA-land. How will browser vendors that
do not honor this meta-data be treated in the US legal system?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 21:26:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:01 GMT