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

RE: Webfont compression

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:12:19 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297ECCE@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: <rfink@readableweb.com>, "Chris Fynn" <cfynn@gmx.net>, <www-font@w3.org>
Cc: "karsten luecke" <list@kltf.de>
Thank you, Rich,

I know how convoluted and confusing this subject can be, especially for
someone who is not familiar with W3C policies and procedures. This is
why I felt I had to explain the things as best I can to make sure that
we are on the same page.

To make a long story short - MTX is a low-hanging fruit on the vine. All
that is necessary for browser vendors to make it a part of an
interoperable EOT (or .webfont) solution is to take it. And by taking it
they will immediately make it "free for all".

Regards,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fink [mailto:rfink@readableweb.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:40 AM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; 'Chris Fynn'; www-font@w3.org
> Cc: 'karsten luecke'
> Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> 
> Vladimir Levantovsky Friday, July 24, 2009
> <Vladimir.levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>:
> 
> > Just to make everything crystal clear for you:.... (see Vlad's post
> below)
> 
> Thank you. And please understand that I have absolutely no reason to
> doubt
> the sincerity of Monotype's pledge. Perhaps the problem is that I'm
> from
> Brooklyn, New York and therefore English is not my native language.
> (Yes, an
> attempt at humor.) I also find your decision not to spend the money to
> take
> MTX "open" unless and until it is to be incorporated into an open
spec,
> reasonable, as well. As long as the technology is freely made
available
> for
> evaluation by interested parties. (This was a point a fellow from SIL,
> I
> believe, made at the Typecon Web Fonts panel.)
> And I certainly hope trust has not degraded to the point where browser
> makers doubt that you will do what you say you are going to do. (It
was
> also
> mentioned at the panel that, should there be distrust, it could
> probably be
> addressed contractually.)
> 
> Personally, if my wishes could all come true, I'd love for you to take
> MTX
> "open" so that it could be included within the new EOT but I live in
> the
> real world. If I were in Monotype's position, I, too, would resist
> spending
> the money until necessary.
> 
> It couldn't be more clear, Vlad. Thanks again for taking the time.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> [mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:16 AM
> To: rfink@readableweb.com; Chris Fynn; www-font@w3.org
> Cc: karsten luecke
> Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Just to make everything crystal clear for you:
> 
> 1. Monotype has invested significant resources in development of MTX
> compression technology. It is available for licensing by any
interested
> party (and has been available for years) but we have been under no
> obligation to license it for free!
> 
> 2. In 2008, Microsoft and Monotype Imaging made a joint submission of
> EOT technology to W3C [1]. At that time, the company agreed to comply
> with the W3C patent policy [2] and to offer royalty-free license for
> any
> portion of the submitted technology that is subsequently incorporated
> in
> a W3C recommendation.
> 
> 3. W3C patent policy has a provision known as "field of use
> restriction"
> (item 3) that allows patent license be limited to implementation of
the
> W3C Recommendation. Mozilla claimed that this provision is
incompatible
> with the GPL license, which is one of the licenses used to distribute
> the Firefox source code.
> 
> 4. In order to facilitate the development of W3C web font solution and
> the adoption of the MTX compression technology Monotype has made a
> voluntary commitment _not_ to exercise our rights to impose "field of
> use restriction" and to offer unrestricted royalty-free license, but
> still only "for any portion of the Submission that is subsequently
> incorporated in a W3C Recommendation".
> 
> 5. For MTX compression (or any part of it) to be incorporated in a W3C
> recommendation, a working group needs to be formed with the charter to
> develop such a Recommendation. Until now, all attempts to form the
> Fonts
> Working Group have been blocked by Mozilla and Opera. Our offer to
> provide unrestricted royalty-free patent license remains on the table
> and is unequivocal but it does require browser vendors to
> - agree to set up Fonts WG for the purposes of developing W3C web font
> solution, and
> - to reach a consensus on the technology in question.
> 
> 6. Licensing fonts for use with EOT technology is a completely
separate
> issue from patent licensing to implement EOT support. In other words,
> implementing EOT either as part of a browser or in EOT creation tool
> does require a patent license; web authors who wish to use EOT do not
> need any patent license and only need to license fonts.
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/01/
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Requirements
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Fink [mailto:rfink@readableweb.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:38 PM
> > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; 'Chris Fynn'; www-font@w3.org
> > Cc: 'karsten luecke'
> > Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> >
> > Thursday, July 23, 2009 Vladimir Levantovsky
> > <Vladimir.levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
> >
> > >The offer is unequivocal, and is contingent only on the adoption of
> > the
> > technology as
> > >part of a web font solution (any solution, whether EOT or its
> > derivative,
> > or any future webfont solution).
> >
> > OK. So there is an IF. It is CONTINGENT. Only IF it's a part of a
web
> > font
> > solution. Otherwise, you're not going to do it.
> > Glad we got to the bottom of it.
> > But you know, you almost confused me again.
> > Let's transpose the sentences and rewrite it like this, so we're
> clear:
> >
> > "Contingent only on the adoption of the technology as part of a web
> > font
> > solution - any solution, whether EOT or its derivative, or any
future
> > webfont solution - I made a promise on this list on behalf of
> Monotype
> > Imaging to offer unrestricted, GPL-compatible, royalty-free license
> for
> > MTX
> > compression technology and the use of patents associated with it.
The
> > offer
> > is unequivocal."
> >
> > Don't mean to bust your chops, Vlad, but the way things are going on
> > this
> > list, I'm finding it hard to concentrate because my BS detector
keeps
> > going
> > off.
> > I guess it's gzip or nothin' for the moment. Although I am still
> > waiting to
> > hear back from Bill Davis of Ascender on the question of licensing
> > fonts
> > using the old EOT, with rootstrings and MTX compression.
> > An option I have always been led to believe, is royalty-free.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > rich
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of
> > Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:58 PM
> > To: rfink@readableweb.com; Chris Fynn; www-font@w3.org
> > Cc: karsten luecke
> > Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> >
> > Rich,
> >
> > I am not sure what Typophile discussion you are referring to - I've
> > never danced around any commitments that I make.
> >
> > I made a promise on this list on behalf of Monotype Imaging to offer
> > unrestricted, GPL-compatible, royalty-free license for MTX
> compression
> > technology and the use of patents associated with it. The offer is
> > unequivocal, and is contingent only on the adoption of the
technology
> > as
> > part of a web font solution (any solution, whether EOT or its
> > derivative, or any future webfont solution).
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0228.html
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0321.html
> >
> > Bringing MTX to the public domain requires spending money and
> > resources.
> > It is doable, but for this to happen I really need to hear that the
> > technology is going to be part of a future solution. The MTX
> > specification and source code is publicly available as part of EOT
> > submission [1], and, like I said earlier, Monotype is willing to
work
> > with any interested party to make our IP available for the purpose
of
> > developing, prototyping or implementing a future W3C Recommendation.
> >
> > So far, I've only heard a healthy criticism and none of the browser
> > vendors expressed any interest in supporting MTX (EOT-Lite solution
> > does
> > not require MTX support). And, if no one wants the MTX technology,
> > giving it away to public domain for no particular good reason and
> > spending time and money doing it wouldn't be justified (according to
> > your own admissions). We do have shareholders we need to answer to.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Vladimir
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-MTX-20080305/
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Fink [mailto:rfink@readableweb.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:30 AM
> > > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; 'Chris Fynn'; www-font@w3.org
> > > Cc: 'karsten luecke'
> > > Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> > >
> > > Thursday, July 23, 2009 Vladimir Levantofsky
> > > <Vladimir.levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>:
> > >
> > > Vlad,
> > >
> > > I questioned Dave DeWitt at the TypeCon 2009 Web Fonts panel about
> > > Monotype's pledge to take MTX public domain or a functional
> > equivalent.
> > > Dave
> > > could not commit firmly. Can you?
> > > We've done a dance around this on typophile.com and still I sense
> > > hedging,
> > > bobbing, and weaving.
> > > "We'll make it open, IF..." is what I'm still hearing. What's the
> IF?
> > > Is
> > > there an IF or are you just going to do it?
> > > Enough already. There's plenty of reason to just do it so that it
> can
> > > be put
> > > back into the new EOT.
> > > It would also be seen as a gesture of goodwill by all concerned.
At
> > > least,
> > > I'd play it up that way.
> > >
> > > Unequivocally, what's the deal, Vlad?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > rich
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:46 AM
> > > To: Chris Fynn; www-font@w3.org
> > > Cc: karsten luecke
> > > Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:59 PM John Daggett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Any of the solutions that have been proposed (webfont, EOT-Lite,
> > ZOT)
> > > > are relatively easy to implement, assuming no DRMish features
are
> > > involved.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:41 AM Chris Fynn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In this case, the so-called "interoperability" seems to be just
a
> > > > pragmatic way of delivering a working cross-platform @font-face
> > > > solution to as many users as possible within the shortest
> possible
> > > time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:12 AM Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It so happens that EOT Lite was stumbled upon as a format
> > > > that is supported by all currently relevant versions of IE, and
> is
> > > > fairly uncontroversial.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that we can make web fonts work in IE6 without any of
> the
> > > > more distasteful baggage of the EOT format is a glorious
> > coincidence
> > > > that we would be remiss in not taking advantage of, for the sake
> of
> > > us
> > > > authors who just want to use pretty fonts yesterday.
> > > >
> > > > After that gets standardized, go crazy making a simpler format.
> > The
> > > > basic work will have been completed, and the urgent need to do
> > > > something, *anything*, will no longer be present.  You can spend
> > time
> > > > gathering opinions and debating technical points then.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Indeed, this says it all!
> > >
> > > As a result of the long and productive discussions we "stumbled
> upon"
> > > EOT-Lite solution that can be easily implemented and allows
> > delivering
> > > a
> > > working cross-platform @font-face support to as many users as
> > possible,
> > > and in the shortest time possible. And because EOT-Lite is also
> > > supported by font vendors, it does mean that authors will have an
> > > opportunity to use custom fonts starting "yesterday", for the
> > benefits
> > > of billions of web users around the globe.
> > >
> > > Once we satisfied the urge to have a working @font-face solution,
> we
> > > can
> > > make a stub at developing a new  solution. Isn't it the way how
the
> > > whole web has emerged - delivering a quick solution that works and
> > > refining it later? Support for legacy implementations has never
> > stopped
> > > the technical progress, and I am sure that as soon as we deliver
> > > working
> > > cross-platform support for @font-face today, we will be better
> > prepared
> > > to introduce a new, better solution that will become the de-facto
> > > standard 5 years from now.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Vladimir
> > >
> >
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 14:12:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT