- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:47:29 -0500
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- CC: WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:34 PM Sylvain Galineau wrote: > Christopher Slye wrote: > > > I'm concerned that SOR-for-WOFF might eventually ebb away if it's not > > completely supported at the outset. You could credibly argue that > Opera's > > market share is too insignificant to worry about, but if there's a > > particular market or region where Opera dominates (or comes to > dominate), > > then the impact of cross-site linking becomes more worrisome. Certain > > foundries might want to concentrate on specific markets or regions, > and if > > they find that Opera has, say, a 60% share there, then it's a > problem. > > Doesn't the cost primarily fall on web sites though ? In those locales where > Opera does especially well they're the ones who might find themselves having > to add Referrer checks to comply with their license and/or to mitigate > hot-linking. To the extent other browsers do this transparently for them I'd > expect the pressure to be on Opera to conform. > > And afaik there's nothing stopping font vendors from telling customers that > Browsers that don't support feature X may require extra work on their end. > > So while it's an annoyance, I suspect the pressure would be on Opera to align, > not the other way around. > I'd like to add that both the costs of enforcing of licenses and producing a font would likely be much higher in those locales where Opera does well. Considering the elevated risks of IP violations and extra costs of producing fonts that may never be recouped - font vendors may be reluctant to license their fonts in those markets, and the very same web users, who stand to benefit from web typography and web fonts the most, would suffer as a result. Vlad
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 01:48:27 UTC