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

RE: A way forward

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:32:52 +0000
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020F83A0@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of John Daggett


> This issue of a new font format is *entirely* a licensing issue.  My
> point was simply that EOT-Lite potentially affects the choice of fonts
> available in non-IE browsers, since those font vendors who require
> same-origin checking in *all* cases would not be able to license their
> fonts for web use (or would need to require things like referrer
> checking) because of this structural limitation.  Creating two font
> files, a legacy EOT and a new format .webfont/ZOT, is a pain but
> it does not have this limitation.

If we thought roostrings were too much of a burden for authors and web sites, requiring
them to handle both rootstrings and a second format should be quite unattractive for many.

Any authors I haven't scared away yet willing to chime in ? :) (Tab...I know you're out there...)

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:33:33 GMT

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