- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:01:07 -0700
- To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Jonathan Kew wrote: > I think many of us would want to make that second statement a MUST, both in the interests of better interoperability, and to maintain the environment that has led to the current flourishing of webfont availability, services, and use. I agree. I was trying to clarify what would be acceptable to Samsung and what wouldn't, leaving aside for now what might be acceptable or not to other stakeholders. JH
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 20:01:57 UTC