>-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] >On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 23:56 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: >> 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? > >Because "more fonts" in your sense is a transient >concern and in this case it comes at high expense >to users. It is the opposite of what a reputable >standards party should do. The expense is already high today, so you should demonstrate how the proposed solution inflates today's costs.Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:45:40 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT