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

RE: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 23:28:11 -0400
To: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, "'Tal Leming'" <tal@typesupply.com>
Cc: <robert@ocallahan.org>, "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003701ca13ea$6e60c0b0$4b224210$@com>
Sunday, August 02, 2009 John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>:

John Hudson wrote:

>I also think that if you (or I) just go to font makers and say 'Will you 
>license your fonts for the EOTL format as proposed here [link to John's 
>1.1 draft]?', the first response you will get from a lot of people will 
>be 'What about .webfont?' So you'll need to explain the context of your 
>question.

Bill Davis posted a list of font-producers who are supporting EOTL. That is a place to begin. Do they have EULAs in place? Or are they just supporting the idea of it? Those are the first questions.
If there is confusion about .webfont versus EOTL, then that's a problem in and of itself and worth revealing in and of itself. If web authors are expected to respect licenses and those offering them don't really know what they should or would contain, or even what the technology is about, I'd say that's a problem.

Tal Leming wrote me:
>As I mentioned before, there are a few font vendors who follow Typophile, but not enough to consider it a place >to "engage directly"...

I heard something akin to this before with regards to TypeCon. "Not representative", I was told. Well, *you* were there, right, John? (According to some, it seems that nothing and nowhere is representative of font makers on the whole. Maybe so, maybe not, it's irrelevant.) There is always a grapevine. Word gets around somehow.
Well, it's time for word to start getting around, that's all.

Regards,

rich



-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 10:21 PM
To: rfink@readableweb.com
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org; 'www-font'
Subject: Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

Richard Fink wrote:

> If you or someone else hasn't started a thread on Typophile to discuss this tomorrow, I'll start one.

Go ahead, but note that while a number of font makers are active as 
individuals on Typophile, many are not and those that are might not be 
in a position to make public statements on behalf of their companies.

I also think that if you (or I) just go to font makers and say 'Will you 
license your fonts for the EOTL format as proposed here [link to John's 
1.1 draft]?', the first response you will get from a lot of people will 
be 'What about .webfont?' So you'll need to explain the context of your 
question.

I will be initiating some discussions about EULAs on other channels, and 
with permission from the participants may be able to report back here. I 
can't promise that, though.

JH
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 03:28:55 GMT

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