W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

RE: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:47:35 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767C26@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

On Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:38 PM Dave Singer wrote:
> 
> On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Dave Singer wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm going to try to summarize what I think I am hearing.  I don't 
> >> necessarily agree or disagree with what this, you understand, I am 
> >> trying to get clarity in at least my own mind.
> >>
> >> On the 'serving' side, we are looking for an indication in 
> the font 
> >> that shows whether it's freely usable or not.
> >
> > It's unclear that we should be looking for this, unless 
> knowing this 
> > solves a user or Web developer problem. Does it?
> >
> 
> [remaining clear that this is merely a summary of what I 
> think I read, not a proposal]
> 
> I think it's that we have to admit that both restricted-use 
> and free fonts may exist, and those making restricted-use 
> fonts want there to be some indications and support for the 
> restrictions, and those making/using free fonts think that 
> there should not be such indications or tech. support for 
> (non-existent) restrictions.
> 

I think we also have to admit that the Web developer should be the only
authority to make a decision what fonts to use and where to get them.
Limiting them to use only free-as-in-freedom fonts would deprive them of
their own freedom-as-liberty.

Cheers,
Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 22:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT