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

Re: a basic question

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:50:15 -0700
Message-ID: <4A527FA7.9000703@tiro.com>
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Thomas Lord wrote:

> What is the rationale against a "TTF/OTF plus ____ format"
> proposal?  That would allow the providers of restricted
> license fonts to continue to withhold permission to 
> use their fonts on the web in TTF/OTF.  It would also
> serve well the providers and users of permissively 
> licensed fonts, as well as the makers of software that
> process font files.

I think it comes down to a question of that that other format looks 
like. If there's going to be a wide open raw TTF/OTF format for the 
web*, then the other format needs to be something other than the same 
TTF/OTF with a couple of wooden pickets out front, a bit of string and a 
sign that says 'Please don't steal me'. If you want to contrast a format 
suitable for those who want to freely distribute their fonts to the 
world with a format suitable for those who do not, then the latter 
format actually has to be able to provide some serious safeguards.

What I'm hearing on this list, though, is that there isn't going to be 
such a format.

JH


*And I should note that some of my clients would take advantage of that 
because they are commissioning fonts to be widely and freely 
distributed. I'm not a 'restricted-license font vendor': I'm a type 
designer looking to give my clients meaningful options.
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 22:51:05 GMT

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