- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 13:35:48 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Glenn wrote: > That translates to respecting the consideration of authors. However, if > authors do not explicitly declare a restriction, then we believe that is > tantamount to declaring that access is unrestricted. That is the current > Web model, not the converse. ... > Samsung is pursuing this point of view because we believe that a > restrictive default in the absence of a declaration of authorial > intention is incompatible with current Web practice, and that it > represents a backward incompatible change to such practice. Yes, this is now the crux of the matter. Tab has suggested the counter argument, which is not that Glenn is wrong that this is counter to the current Web model, but that the current Web model is outdated. JH
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 20:36:19 UTC