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

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:13:37 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200907071013.n67ADbGT018979@post.webmailer.de>
To: www-font@w3.org
John Hudson wrote:
> I would like the same font format to be able to clearly communicate the free licensing model of one font and the particular licensing restrictions of another font.

This sums it up nicely.

* * *

Thomas Lord wrote:
> 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.
[And later insistance, why then don't others do so.]

Adobe is not primarily a type foundry. They make applications and ALSO fonts, to make their applications more attractive. So preventing font filesharing (browsers supporting raw TTF/OTF at all) may not have priority for Adobe..

* * *

Thomas Lord wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 22:18 +0200, François REMY wrote:
>> There's two reason, as it seems :
>
> I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth
> (the vendors in question and Microsoft).
>
> So far they are apparently too busy accusing me of 
> accusing them of lying and such to have the time
> to actually provide the rationale that is missing.

Regarding the two reasons, this differs not much from what I said. (In awquard wording I know.) You may have read Tal Leming's posts. And John Hudson's. And Thomas Phinney's.

Best wishes,
Karsten
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 10:23:05 GMT

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