Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] wrote: >> 1. Purposely breaking interop with desktop OSes (EOT, any obfuscation >> proposal, most compression proposals). > >That is reason enough for W3C TAG to object to any >such proposal, in my opinion. Not sure why that would be the case. If it enables more fonts to be licensed for web use, then why would they object? >This in spite of that fact that such a restriction [SO] >is completely inappropriate for libre fonts. And therefore, if the font permits, it should be possible to ignore ("not describe") such a restriction. -CReceived on Thursday, 2 July 2009 23:57:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:12:02 GMT