- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:44:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote: > > Read the Microsoft Office EULA. Fonts are included. Read the Vista EULA. > Fonts are included. ...and as I mentioned already, the EULAs don't say what you keep saying they say. In fact my reading of them, as detailed in the links below, is that embedding the fonts unchanged as TTF files using data: URIs is allowed, and recasting the fonts as EOTs and putting them on a Web server to be linked to from a stylesheet is not allowed. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Nov/0274.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0084.html You didn't reply to either of those e-mails, yet you continue to claim that EOT is ok while TTF is not. All this while your company simultaneously ships software that allows anyone to use exactly what you say isn't allowed (Silverlight supports using raw TTF files from HTTP). Anyway, from a W3C perspective there are now three implementations of TTF @font-face available, so we should be able to require that in a spec and have that spec survive CR without any troubles. The idea that fonts somehow need the protection of (very poor) pseudo-DRM when graphics, stylesheets, scripts, documents, etc, do not, is ridiculous. We already have a mechanism to handle copyright violations, it's the legal system. We should let the legal system do its job. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 09:45:18 UTC