- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:26:35 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: info@ascenderfonts.com, www-font <www-font@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > Thanks Bill. > > Well then, assuming Ascender is representative of other font vendors (any > care to comment?), No offense to the Ascender folks, but I don't think you can assume *any* single foundry is representative of other foundries when it comes to licensing details at the level you're looking for. The industry (the very phrase may be misleading) isn't that cohesive! > EOTL needs to ignore the rootstring, it needs to use a > version number that enables rootstring processing in IE<=8, and authors will > need to insert appropriate rootstrings to get them to work as EOT Classic > fonts for IE<=8. > > Although I think rootstrings are bad, this seems to be the best of a bad set > of deployment options for authors who need to target IE<=8. First, it's a question of what foundries will require in their EULAs for this case. *If* the EULA is flexible enough to accept *either* root strings or referrer checking, I wouldn't want to make any assumption about that authors will prefer, one or the other. Cheers, T
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 23:27:12 UTC