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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:30:55 -0400
To: "'Levantovsky, Vladimir'" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "'John Daggett'" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004a01ca1197$b2fe13d0$18fa3b70$@com>
Thursday, July 30, 2009 Vladimir Levantovsky
<Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>:

>Monotype would be very supportive if MTX compression is included as part
>of EOT-Lite Recommendation. Our offer and our commitment remains the
>same - we will provide unrestricted royalty-free patent license if MTX
>is included in the deal.

If memory serves me correctly, John Daggett voiced a concern about the
amount of time additional testing, evaluation, etc... of MTX would entail.
Time *is* of great concern, but I'm wondering if John has had any new
thoughts on the matter.
There's a broad consensus that the next generation web font format beyond
EOT should feature compression. And therefore I think that, looking back,
there might be regrets at not having incorporated MTX royalty free when
there was the chance. Fonts are big files. Compression has benefits. Is
EOTL, the improvement to EOT, to be inferior to EOT in this regard? Looked
at in this way, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
MTX has been working code in IE for what, ten years?
I, too, urge that we give the pros, cons, and practicalities of
incorporating MTX a last going-over.

Regards,

rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Levantovsky, Vladimir
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:45 PM
To: Thomas Lord; John Daggett
Cc: www-font
Subject: RE: EOT-Lite File Format

On Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:10 PM Thomas Lord wrote:
> 
> > > If EOT-lite becomes the recommendation, is the
> > > previously discussed patent de-encumberence of MTX
> > > included in the deal?
> 
> > No, as currently defined EOT-Lite does not include MTX compression.
> 
> That's something that will come up as things move
> forward.  I think that's a problem.  Can we hear
> from Monotype on that?  Maybe they wouldn't mind
> if MTX patents became safe to implement if EOT-lite
> is adopted.  Otherwise, we wind up with an arguably
> discriminatory Recommendation.
> 

Monotype would be very supportive if MTX compression is included as part
of EOT-Lite Recommendation. Our offer and our commitment remains the
same - we will provide unrestricted royalty-free patent license if MTX
is included in the deal.

Vladimir
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 04:31:38 GMT

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