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

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

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:35:51 +0000
Message-ID: <2285a9d20811111635q132f2080l2d0b759f6ece1c66@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

2008/11/12 Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>:
> At 0:06  +0000 12/11/08, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Dave Singer wrote:
>>>
>>>  > >
>>>  > > 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?
>>>
>>>  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
>>
>> I agree that this is the case.
>>
>> My question is, why do we care? We should be caring about the needs of the
>> users and Web developers above all else. And it doesn't seem to me that
>> there is a problem faced by these constituencies that is solved by making
>> the technology work less well for those constituencies.
>
> I *think* the argument is that it makes things better for web designers and
> users, because if there is some handling of restricted-use fonts with which
> the font foundries are comfortable, they'll allow web use of their
> commercial fonts by said designers and for said users, which is desirable.
>  I think.

Yes, that is the argument as I have understood it.

I think some foundries:

1. will not allow any web use even with DRM
2. will allow web use only only if there is widely implemented font DRM
3. will allow web use on a party-by-party basis without requiring DRM
4. will allow web use by anyone without DRM

DRM proponents suggest there are many of 2 and few of 3. I am not sure
this is the case; it might appear the case today, but is subject to
change. Eg, that the big record labels said they were equivalently all
2 and are now almost all 3 for music shows an industry's consensus can
change a lot in only a few years, too.

So, supposing the W3C called DRM promoters' bluff as Ian Hickson
suggests, and ignored their campaign for W3C DRM, I think things would
get better for web designers and users, because font foundries will
allow web use of their restricted fonts by said designers and for said
users. They'd be leaving money on the table if they didn't.

But supposing the W3C called DRM promoters' bluff as Ian Hickson
suggests, and ignored their campaign for W3C DRM, and font foundries
did not allow web use of their restricted fonts. Would new foundries
emerge with new business models to serve this hungry market?

I am certain that would happen, because I'm attempting to pursue such
a business model regardless of if W3C makes a DRM standard or not :-)

Best,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:36:32 GMT

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