- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:02 -0700
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 17:33 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > Unless there is some other reasoning that > hasn't been introduced into this argument > (say, that would sway the font vendors), > I think you can consider that the view of > Microsoft is that TTF/OTF linking is the > wrong solution to enabling fonts on the web, > and Microsoft would prefer that a group > including font vendors, web designers, and > user agent implementers work together to > come up with a solution that respects the needs > of all (including the needs that EOT did not > meet for the other browser vendors, BTW). Chris, Will you please comment on why a three-format solution is not acceptable to the font vendors and Microsoft? I can't fathom it. By a "three-format" solution I mean a requirement to support OTF, TTF, and some new format. We can discuss the requirements for the new format separately. A three-format solution would allow vendors to say that none of their fonts are licensed for use on the web in TTF or OTF, only the new format. Meanwhile, other font makers whose tools already use TTF or OTF would be well supported and the useful degree of interop with legacy desktop applications would be preserved. -t
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 17:53:43 UTC