- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:58:39 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> And the >risk of it being worse is significant; browsers might be turned into a >font police, responsible for displaying or enforcing licenses. Ascender's proposal explicitly states they do not want nor expect user agents to enforce licensing. >Also, >It will send the "wait-we're-not-ready-yet" message which is >disruptive to contemporary implemetations. IE is not a contemporary implementation ? Or is it inherently OK to be incompatible with it ? We - browser and font vendors - have already sent this message, Hakon. It's either a) stick to free fonts and serve them in two encodings or use commercial fonts and forget non-IE browsers. How can this situation be construed as 'ready' or not disruptive ? >Not at all. But before starting a new heroic endeavour, it makes sense >to look around to see if we already have a solution. Like EOT ? :) >This doesn't mean that your ideas of having a generic wrapper format >is bad. But I wouldn't apply it to fonts first. Or it wouldn't have to be generic, thereby ensuring much faster agreement and implementation.
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 00:59:23 UTC