- 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>
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 UTC