- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:34:09 -0700
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 14:56 -0400, Tal Leming wrote: > Please note that I, a type designer, am not endorsing a single format, > two formats or anything at this point. This is an extremely complex > and nuanced issue for those of us who make fonts. Polarizing > statements are not helping us type designers feel any more comfortable > with the risk we are being asked to take. I come at this problem from the software engineering side - I'm not a type designer. I suspect that I see some of the subtleties from that angle that you might not notice. I think you have misplaced your accusation of who is being polarizing. The polarizing statement came from Chris Wilson when he wrote "No." in response to a question about the possibility of a compromise in which raw TTF/OTF support is required alongside an additional format which helps vendors of restricted-license fonts manage their risks. Mr. Wilson appears to have softened his statement in later comments so perhaps it can be reversed. We can hope. If, however, that "No." stands, the implication is that a W3C Recommendation must require a poorly engineered solution - simply because Microsoft demands it. Nothing less is at stake, in that case, than the legitimacy and future of W3C itself. It is important, therefore, for people generally and Microsoft in particular to understand the fight Mr. Wilson's "No." proposes to pick. In effect, those of us who value W3C's legitimate technical role must respond by resisting Microsoft's further participation in the matter. Such resistance can be procedural within W3C, political in spreading the message of what will have happened here, and economic in terms of using the occasion to encourage migration of users away from IE. I am not polarizing: I am pointing out the consequences of the polarization Microsoft has created. If they return to the table, the wound to the community may be healed. If they do not, we must respond appropriately. -t
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 19:34:51 UTC