W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

Re: New work on fonts at W3C

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:01:24 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20906221601j799d284cte05f5dd04bf1a953@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, www-style@w3.org
2009/6/22 Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>:
> On Monday, June 22, 2009 5:49 PM Jonathan Kew wrote:
>>
>> In regard to your last comment:
>>
>> > I am afraid to do what John proposed would be absolutely impractical
>> > and
>> > prohibitively expensive from the production process point of view. I
>> > cannot see how we can put this burden on our customers, and I don't
>> > think that modifying every single copy of a font licensed for web
>> > use by
>> > changing its name will work, especially because I'd imagine that
> most
>> > font EULAs would also allow non-web use where normal, full-featured
>> > font
>> > versions with proper names and styles have to be supported.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is as impractical as you suggest. Vendors such as
>> Monotype would continue to deliver "normal" fonts, but customers
>> wishing to use those fonts on a web server would be required (by the
>> EULA) to use a tool that replaces the names with "No Trespassing"
>> signs -- how is this more burdensome than having to use a tool that
>> converts the OTF font to EOT?
>
> I find it even hard to imagine that we would ever "ask" our customers to
> do this. In essence, it can only be done by hand,

Um, that makes no sense at all; a child could write a program that
replaces the names inside a font file with "No Trespassing" strings.
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 23:02:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT