For some reason, I can't seem to be able to bounce (moderate) this mail. Thus, forwarding. -- olivier
attached mail follows:
Terje Bless wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >>>4. The fonts used must be embeddable — including optimization for >>> download time by removing unused glyphs from badge files — and not >>> encumbered by any “Intelectual Property” restrictions (since they >>> will be part of the Validator source code and published under an OSS >>> License) beyond the normal Logo and Trademark guidelines. >> >>What does this mean? Do you mean that you would like us to use only >>OpenSource fonts in our communications materials? I don't know if I can >>promise that; I only want to be clear on your request. > > > Well, ideally “Open Source” font faces — such as “Bitstream Vera” — would be > used. This would let us include SVG format masters in the source code for the > Validator under the same license as the rest of the code. > Any font with a limitation or encumberance on its distribution would require > us to go to ridiculous lengths in order to satisfy those limitations, our > internal development requirements, and external user requirements. > > For instance, any font whose license does not allow us to include the original > font files themselves in the source distribution is probably out of the > question. Any font which would not let us embed a few of the glyphs — e.g. in > an SVG master — would make it very hard to use. > > In addition to the straightforward Copyright-related license issues, I'm told > some fonts have yet further restrictions in some juridistictions. e.g. while > the US does not allow restrictions on the “shape” of a font (IIRC), some other > juridistictions /do/; and thus even a free clone or derivative of such a font > would become encumbered in those juridistictions. > > And finally, some fonts might be distributed under a license that prohibits > subsetting of the available glyphs or similar modifications. In a context such > as providing badges in SVG format, this could lead to the ridiculous situation > of having to either include the full font in each badge (leading to very large > file sizes) or not embedding the font at all. > > In any case; our main concern with fonts useage for the badges is not whether > they're “pretty”, suitable for print or web use, legible, etc. (I expect you > have all those sorts of issues well in hand). Our requirements stem from the > fonts being, from the perspective of the Validator, essentially “source code” > and thus needs to allow modification and redistribution under the same terms > as the surrounding source code. > > In particular, it's not enough to distribute binary objects (PNG, GIF, SVGz, > etc.) of the pre-rendered badges. We need to include the “source code” masters > in a way such that the recipient could conceivably regenerate — using Open > Source tools — all the badges from the master templates. > > Typically this would be to implement a new compression algorithm, converting > PNG alpha channel to simple transparency for MSIE:win (a specific use case > which has cropped up lately), adding Dublin Core or RDF metadata, adding a > custom glyph for the checkmark in the badges, or similar purely > technical/format transformations. > > > But do note that this is in regards fonts __as_used_in_the_badges__ and not > w3.org font useage in general. I assume validator.w3.org and related sites > would quickly adopt any w3.org general font policy for web pages, but here the > CSS font fallback mechanism would make any encumbered fonts non-problematic. > It's specifically the font used for the text in the “Valid This” badges that > concern us. > > > > Back in 1998 or thereabouts, my then employer set about on a grand project to > replace their original web site — which was rather austere and simplistic, but > Valid HTML 3.2; guess who designed it? :-) — with one designed by a local ad > agency. When the time came for the launch, every employee computer had one of > the “Copperplate” (98BC?) fonts installed so the site would “look right”... > > It was quite amusing to hear the complaints of the marketing department, upon > returning from a customer and having demonstrated our shiny new web site, that > the pages looked horribly ugly and the pretty font didn't show up. Not quite > as amusing when the proposed workaround was to turn the pages into a single > large image with an imagemap for links. > > > The moral of the story? Font useage needs to be _useable_ first, and æstethic > second; and in our case, we have some additional use requirements above what > is normally necessary for design for web publishing. Terje, thank you very much for this helpful and detailed description. Just as I would have a question, the next paragraph would address it. I'll bring your requests back to the Comm Team, and hope to have a response by the start of next week. Best regards, Janet > > - -- > My mom is a professional botanist, or, as her spousal equivalent described > it, they'll be out hiking in the woods, she'll see a plant off by the side > of the trail, run up to it, bend down, and start talking Latin at it. > -- Steve VanDevender > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGP SDK 3.2.2 > > iQA/AwUBQoMCj6PyPrIkdfXsEQJ69ACfY6IxAUfJc6s5T1t85B74q/9Df8EAmweW > t1DNOBMjRqnE4/mP2elreEe7 > =d7nW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Janet Daly, Global Communications Officer MIT/CSAIL, Building 32-G518 32 Vassar Street Cambridge, MA 02139 voice: 617.253.5884 fax: 617.258.5999 http://www.w3.org/ janet@w3.orgReceived on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 09:22:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:54:49 UTC