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

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Christopher Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:36:48 +0600
Message-ID: <4A517150.9030309@gmx.net>
To: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Yes ~ the real point is that font foundries and vendors have most of the 
influence on what gets added to the OTF spec. If *they* want an EEULA 
table as part of that spec, and can come to consensus on the fields it 
would hold, I see no reason why an EEULA table wouldn't be included as 
part of *that* spec.

Then, as part of that spec, we would have a table to hold  a machine 
readable license, different sets of embedding bits (for document, web, 
pdf, e-book, etc, use) - fields to hold such data as serial number and 
so on, and whatever else font foundries and vendors think they need, all 
held right in the font.

It would then be up to those producing applications such as browsers 
whether or not to recognise such a table, how to expose to users any 
metadata it contained, and whether or not and how to enforce the 
electronically readable license terms embedded there.

With OTF linking, at least the specification of the font file format 
remains more or less in the hands of those who produce fonts. OTOH if 
those font producers decide they want, and insist on a web-specific font 
format, then the specification of that format necessarily includes many 
more players.

- Chris


Thomas Phinney wrote:
> Side note: Although technically there is a distinct OpenType spec, in
> practice at this point the Open Font Format (OFF) spec revision
> process is what's being foll.owed. That is, it's an open process in
> which Microsoft and Adobe don't have any more (official) power than
> anybody else.
> 
> As with other standards, certain organizations and people have some
> form of seniority and are much more influential than others, of
> course.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> T
> 
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Fynn<cfynn@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Of course if MSIE were to agree to support OTF linking, as far as I can see
>> there seems to be nothing preventing those responsible for maintaining the
>> OTF spec (MS & Adobe) from including something like a machine readable EEULA
>> table <http://www.eeulaa.org/> in a future version of *that* spec. A later
>> version of MSIE might then enforce whatever restrictions were in that table
>> (if present in a font).
>>
>> - CF
>>
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 03:37:40 GMT

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