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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format v.1.1

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:30:56 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249068656.6160.116.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 19:15 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >Which sounds like an unwillingness to endorse
> >the intention that conforming UAs are free to
> >implement the full EOT.
> >
> >That is alarming.
> 
> First, and for the record, that is not what I said.
> 
> Second, as other browser vendors have in fact refuse
> to endorse EOT for these very reasons and that in turn
> is the reason for creating EOTL, your argument is, again,
> a waste of everyone's time. Thank you.

The question before us is whether or not EOTL
should be required ("MUST") in a W3C Recommendation.

That question hinges in part on the consensus and
legal status of full EOT implementation and what
the Recommendation has to say in terms of recording
that consensus.

This is a simple concept to grasp no matter how
vociferously you insult me.  That you refuse to answer
a simple question tells me, as I said, all I need
to know about MSFT's position on the matter.

-t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 19:31:36 GMT

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