- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:22:20 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote: > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser > vendors accept to ship an inferior product. Microsoft marketing would > quickly claim that only they "fully support EOT". Font vendors might > give rebates to those who are willing to "protect" the fonts with root > strings, at which point supporting non-IE browsers suddenly starts > costing money. This is not a compelling scenario, and I don't think > consensus around EOTx is possible. I agree it's not compelling—but by that I mean it's pure fantasy on your part. The actions you claim "would" and "might" happen are speculation on your part with no obvious basis in reality. Certainly the font vendor part is absurd. No font vendor is going to offer financial incentives for their customers to use versions of EOT that don't work outside of IE. T
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:22:56 UTC