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

Re: cutting to the chase

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:08:50 -0700
To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <1249326530.7120.65.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 05:22 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote:
>  you think your newly
> posited outcome (TTF/OTF + a new format in a single step
> Recommendation) is not very likely.

Soon.  Yet if it were possible, it would
likely find widespread support.  Given that,
the incremental step of just TTF/OTF 
should be unobjectionable.

> Beyond that, you didn't answer my question about who has standing to
> lodge a Formal Objection, but I see from reading 

An oversight on my part.  Glad you found the answer.

> But in general, whether the W3C Recommendation required BOTH a new
> format and raw TTF/OTF, or only raw TTF/OTF, most retail type
> foundries and professional type designers who fully understand the
> implications would be Very Unhappy. Basically, they don't want to see
> raw TTF/OTF support be universal, because as discussed previously,
> they feel it is a threat to their basic livelihood.

Nobody will be obligated to permit use of their fonts
on the web in TTF/OTF which makes such objections 
particularly weak.

> Certainly having a new format as well would be better than only naked
> desktop fonts, but still pretty scary to most font folks. However,
> that's not what you're advocating (at least not in the short term) nor
> what you think is likely, so it's a moot point how they'd react to the
> joint situation.
> .

You only see it as moot because you presume
that those vendors of whom you speak have 
standing and cause to object.   If they would
not have standing and cause to object in the
two-formats case, it is hard to believe they do
in settling the TTF/OTF case sooner rather than

> How many would formally Object, in either case? Who knows? Depending
> on how they perceive the process and what grounds for Objection seem
> to be considered legitimate, any given foundry or type designer might
> or might not Object. It seems pretty much a foregone conclusion that
> at least some would. Probably a lot more if the proposed
> Recommendation or stated purpose for forming the WG is to standardize
> on naked desktop fonts alone.

I'm trying to imagine the content of such Objections.
"We don't want to permit use of our content in
this format.  We won't soon have any viable alternative.
W3C should do nothing in this area so that others
are discouraged from publishing their content on the
web in TTF/OTF".

> > there is no Objection that will stand the "reasonable person" test

> Where is this test described? A quick Google search for the terms
> "Formal Objection" + "reasonable person" + W3C yields nothing.


The community at large benefits if libre fonts can be
used on the web in the most interoperable format
going (TTF/OTF).   To assert that allowing the community
that capability would lead to a massive ripp-off of
restricted-license fonts is to assume that the 
proprietary font vendors are special and everyone else

> Regardless, based on past history here, I can't assume your judgment
> of what a "reasonable person" would think *necessarily* concurs with
> everyone else's, or even a majority of other participants in the
> discussion.

Yes, so you've said.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:41 UTC