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 23:46:47 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20907241546o27241393t22207942ea726534@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
2009/7/24 John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>> 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?
> We want a nice clean web font spec, against which we can test our products.

There was I thinking we were rushing to monetise web fonts.

I'm all in support of improving web fonts for users, but it seems that
architecturally clean and powerful ideas that I favor (ie, Tom Lord's
metadata-centric proposal that also ticks off all the speedbump
checklist points; and .webfonts/ZOT to the extent that helps points
users at licenses which I think its likely .webfonts would do given
the 2.1 schema) are being de-prioritized against quick-to-market

So I'm attempting to flesh out that end of the spectrum.
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:47:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC