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

Re: A way forward

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:38:34 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20907241538y6b479964m63f38b8395e447af@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
2009/7/24 Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>:
>
>> But, if that is the case - if the existing cross site restriction is
>> good enough for foundries who support EOT, and their aim is to get
>> profiting from web fonts ASAP, why isn't supplying TTFs with corrupt
>> NAME tables and a changed file extension good enough?
>
> As compared to what alternative ? How would those TTFs work in IE ?

The point is to get to profiting from web fonts ASAP. That being the
case, the shortest way is for either all other browsers to implement
some version of EOT, or for Microsoft to implement OFFs. The latter
seems like the fastest way, realistically, if Microsoft can persuade
foundries (that it has said all along it has their interests at heart
and this isn't an attempt to swindle DRM onto the web stack) that OFFs
can be served in an acceptable way for them to wildly profit.

I believe that this case can be made.

>> That seems like an adequate speedbump; it has acceptable cross linking
>> restriction, installation in desktops is refused for such files, and
>> foundries can supply different files for desktop and web licenses. I
>> think it must be included in any summaries of the various proposals.
>
> Fine by me.

Um, really? someone@microsoft.com saying 'TTF prepared for the web' is
a fine web font format seems surprising. Okay!
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:39:35 GMT

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