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

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

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:08:13 -0800
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6D096C8718FA4241B934489A5E1CE1420118E2DE6271@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
> 2008/11/12 Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>:
> > Dave Crossland wrote:
> >
> >> I suggest a scheme with root strings not based on ENFORCING them,
> but
> >> INFORMING people about them and about full license texts. This is
> the
> >> key difference between DRM and DRE.
> >> ...
> >> I think consensus around this issue is possible, if it is presented
> in
> >> a way that convinces foundries it will stop casual unauthorised use.
> >
> > I am dubious that you will find a presentation that will convince
> > a critical mass of type foundries of your proposition.
>
> Obviously that isn't the position of Adobe, its your personal opinion....

Neither, really. I am representing Adobe in these discussions. But I am writing informally, and this is a discussion rather than a simple statement of absolute position.

It seems quite unlikely that a critical mass of type foundries would be willing to license their fonts for use on publicly accessible web servers, if the protection for those fonts is limited to pure information and UAs and the web font architecture do not do anything to help the situation. Adobe's objective in this discussion is to come up with a proposal that will satisfy most foundries (meaning at least: foundries representing a strong majority of retail font sales) and make the W3C happy. I don't see your proposition as meeting the first requirement.

I'd hold off on making any pronouncement on what Adobe itself would do in such an eventuality until presented with a more detailed proposal and talking it over with other folks internally, but at first blush, I'd say the odds are we wouldn't license our fonts for such usage, either. Though if UAs made the information obtrusive enough, that would be a plus.

Regards,

T
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 23:06:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:17 GMT