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

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 13:28:53 -0700
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Message-ID: <7E9E4EDE-C05E-4496-BB27-99FE9968C788@adobe.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
This scenario seems contrived and far-fetched.

EOTL is considered superior by many because it holds the promise of  
compatibility in all browsers. I don't know why any author or foundry  
would prefer EOT -- rootstrings and all -- if it only works in IE.

How is a world where an author can use a font only with EOT in IE and  
not at all in Opera better than a world where they have a choice to  
use EOT in IE or EOTL in IE and Opera?

And even if all browsers settled on some other web font format -- or  
raw fonts! -- wouldn't EOT in IE still be there to cause foundries to  
give a discount for it? Why is EOT's existence not now "costing money"?

-Christopher


On Aug 4, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Håkon Wium Lie 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.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:29:38 GMT

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