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 18:37:20 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297F1DC@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-font@w3.org>
Fine with me, any new name that brings us closer to interoperable solution is good.

Vlad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sylvain Galineau [mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 6:06 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: EOT & DMCA concerns
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:58 PM
> > To: Håkon Wium Lie; Tab Atkins Jr.
> > Cc: Thomas Lord; Thomas Phinney; John Hudson; www-font@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: EOT & DMCA concerns
> >
> > Would the name EOT-Neue or something similar alleviate your concern?
> > Support for a new version of something doesn't imply any obligation
> to
> > support older one.
> >
> > Vlad
> 
> I think the idea is to drop the reference to EOT altogether. It's XYZ
> 1.0 and
> it's compatible with legacy browsers. Then 2.0 would be the nextgen
> long term'
> .webfont/ZOT successor. That's the message I'm getting anyway.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:37:58 GMT

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