- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:25:01 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:17 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 16:44 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> > >> >> Then we can... call it something else? If the name is what's making >> >> you hang back, then we're basically done I guess. >> > >> > No, somebody already called "no takebacks". >> > >> > More seriously, it's called "-lite" because that's >> > what it is, it's not what it is because it's >> > called that. It's revealing to hear the suggestion >> > "let's just change the name, then". >> >> Well, when the objection is "I don't like the name", > > > Seriously, that's what you think the objection is? > Read more carefully! I did. I responded to it point-by-point. Hakon's response to that was essentially "Okay, but the *marketing* problem can still be worse because of the name.". Change the name, and you remove that problem - Microsoft can no longer position itself as supporting *all* the EOT versions compared to everyone else just supporting Lite. Instead we'll have Microsoft supporting EOT (just like today), and then everybody supporting WROTEv1 or whatever. That's harder to spin, and spin seems to be what Hakon was objecting to. You may not be objecting to the name, but you weren't the person I was talking to in those emails. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:25:56 UTC