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

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:02:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4A78B00E.5050002@tiro.com>
CC: www-font@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> That's claimable *right now*.  In fact, it's even worse.  At this
> moment Microsoft could truthfully make the claim that they're shipping
> the only webfont format accepted by major font foundries.  You know
> that Ascender supports EOTL, and it's very likely that other foundries
> will as well.

Bill Davis has a list, a close to current version of which is posted 
here http://typophile.com/node/60220 along with a few 'me too' 
statements from additional font makers.

There is a fair amount of cross-over between this list and the list of 
foundries supporting .webfont.
http://typegirl.tumblr.com/post/142912558/most-of-the-important-foundries-are-supporting-webfont

If I had to characterise the difference between those who are on one 
list but not on the other, I'd suggest that larger companies with 
substantial multi-source libraries are supportive of EOT-Lite, while 
smaller foundries mainly selling their own products are supportive of 
.webfont.

However, I think this distinction might say more about the internal 
politics of the type business than it does about the technical merits of 
either proposal.

JH
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:03:38 GMT

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