W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:22:50 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907021722u23280566ne6f34473ad785c6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> 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 argument is disingenuous.  If Mozilla were to come up with a new
>>font format that was 100% supported by every font foundry, but it was
>>solely licensed under the GPL (effectively preventing MS from using it
>>in IE), that would still be unacceptable.
>>
>>The most important metric here is number of users reached, not number
>>of fonts allowed. (At least, IMO.)  Fonts allowed is still an
>>important metric, mind you, but not the *most* important metric.  Any
>>solution must be have interop with all browsers.
>
> Okay, I'm sorry, I should have said "if it helps maximize Users*BrowserSupport*FontsAvailable, why would they object?"

In which case I agree with you.  ^_^  (Though BrowserSupport and Users
are identical in this context - one is just a finer-grained version of
the other.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:23:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT