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

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:58:39 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020BD03E@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>


> And the
>risk of it being worse is significant; browsers might be turned into a
>font police, responsible for displaying or enforcing licenses.
Ascender's proposal explicitly states they do not want nor expect user agents
to enforce licensing.

>Also,
>It will send the "wait-we're-not-ready-yet" message which is
>disruptive to contemporary implemetations.
IE is not a contemporary implementation ? Or is it inherently OK to be incompatible with it ?
We - browser and font vendors - have already sent this message, Hakon. It's either a) stick
to free fonts and serve them in two encodings or use commercial fonts and forget non-IE browsers.
How can this situation be construed as 'ready' or not disruptive ?

>Not at all. But before starting a new heroic endeavour, it makes sense
>to look around to see if we already have a solution.
Like EOT ? :)

>This doesn't mean that your ideas of having a generic wrapper format
>is bad. But I wouldn't apply it to fonts first.
Or it wouldn't have to be generic, thereby ensuring much faster agreement and implementation.
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 00:59:23 GMT

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