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

progress on mutual understanding

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:35:23 -0700
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Message-Id: <1246934123.6388.162.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
To highlight:

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 19:04 -0700, Christopher Slye wrote:
> It has been asked repeatedly here whether font foundries would support  
> having both raw font linking and protected font linking (e.g. EOT) in  
> browsers. For Adobe, yes, we would support that.


Let that very welcome declaration not be lost
in the noise!  <applause/>, so to speak.

We've yet to explore what is 
entailed in "(e.g. EOT)" so disagreements may
very well remain, but at least the principle
that direct TTF/OTF linking is on the table,
at least per Adobe, is established.

If you will, what conditions would Adobe require
for "protected font linking", given that others
of us find "e.g. EOT"  to be too vague a description
to find sensible?  A great many of varieties of
"protection" have been discussed.  It would be helpful
to better understand Adobe's view of the range
of "acceptable" and "desirable" kinds of "protection".

Regards,
-t

p.s.:

>  We would be even more  
> supportive of ONLY protected font linking, 

That is understood.  I wish neither side had to make
compromises but both do.   Hopefully it is all for the 
better.
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 02:36:05 GMT

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