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

RE: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:54:08 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297F1DA@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>
Cc: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:29 PM Thomas Lord wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:22 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > Thomas,
> >
> > I believe all prior discussions has made it clear that browser
> vendors have no
> > interest in supporting EOT,
> 
> They have no interest in implementing it's "protection"
> features and wish to steer clear of the patent issues.
> If those obstacles are cleared, the situation changes
> and then it is they who merit criticism rather than
> EOTL backers.
> 

This is exactly the reason why EOT-Lite is introduced, it clears the "protection" issue by taking it completely out of the picture, and there are no patent issue to consider because not a single piece of technology in EOT-Lite is patent-protected. According to you own admission, with the original obstacles been cleared the situation changes and there is nothing that might prevent EOT-Lite be implemented by all UA vendors.

Regards,
Vladimir

> 
> 
> > and this is why EOT-Lite was introduced. Your attempt to somehow
> > establish a connection between EOT-Lite and EOT-Classic is
> > counter-productive.
> 
> I am not "establishing" that connection - it is central
> to the point of EOTL.
> 
> We are going in circles here which only reinforces my
> point that the other browser implementers ought to
> form a WG and sanctify TTF/OTF and contemplate same-origin+CORS.
> As it stands, the EOT* discussion is a fanciful waste
> of time.
> 
> -t
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > You do not need to support EOT-Classic to enable support for MTX
> compression, it can be made a part of EOT-Lite implementation if we see
> the value and browser vendors agree to implement it. Monotype offer is
> not tied to supporting original EOT format only, it is still valid if
> MTX is chosen to be part of EOT-Lite (with no ties to EOT-Classic).
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Thomas Lord
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:46 PM
> > > To: Sylvain Galineau
> > > Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; www-font@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: EOT & DMCA concerns
> > >
> > > Sylvain, given the position you describe here,
> > > will you have any problem at all advocating that
> > > all the font vendors at the table, and Microsoft,
> > > should heartily endorse a draft Recommendation
> > > that says UAs "MUST" implement EOTL but "SHOULD"
> > > implement EOTC-sans-enforcement?  And calling upon
> > > Monotype to liberate MTX patenting in support of
> > > that?   To thus advocate would seem to be consistent
> > > with what you are saying here.   Such endorsement
> > > would help to make very clear that people generally
> > > don't expect EOTC to serve as a "protection" format
> > > in the future and that other browser implementers
> > > are not legally constrained should they choose to
> > > support it.
> > >
> > > -t
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:37 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > > > > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org]
> On
> > > > > Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:58 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC)
> browser
> > > > > vendors accept to ship an inferior product.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it inferior ? EOTC ships on a majority of browsers today
> and,
> > > except for
> > > > certain regions (India, Korea) remains unused and shall likely
> remain
> > > so as long
> > > > as it remains browser-specific. EOTC would quite likely be
> > > considered inferior
> > > > to EOTL if it were implemented by all browsers.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you now believe interoperability makes a format inferior
> to
> > > its proprietary
> > > > alternative ? That seems odd.
> > > >
> > > > >Microsoft marketing would quickly claim that only they "fully
> > > support EOT".
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft marketing has done so and can still claim today that
> only
> > > we support EOT. Given
> > > > how brilliantly that's worked I'm sure you needn't lose sleep
> over
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Are there reasons to believe authors would be interested ? Given
> that
> > > authors want a
> > > > cross-browser solution badly enough that the one that already
> works
> > > in IE today is
> > > > left largely unused despite its high market share, I very much
> doubt
> > > this is relevant since...
> > > > the EOT rebate already exists today ! Commercial web fonts are
> only
> > > available in that format.
> > > >
> > > > >This is not a compelling scenario, and I don't think consensus
> > > around EOTx is possible.
> > > >
> > > > The scenario is very hypothetical and deeply flawed. There has in
> > > fact been quite a bit of
> > > > progress on this proposal in the past few weeks.
> > > >
> > >
> >

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:54:52 GMT

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