W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:37:22 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907021437x523fd11y7865d9377d3a6e3b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] wrote:
>>Certainly.  That's still completely orthogonal to the webfont format,
>>though.  No format that has been proposed has ever used (presumably
>>machine-readable) license terms to control how the *author* can use
> Is this what EOT and the embedding bit in TTF does?

I'm not fully familiar with everything that EOT offers.  You're
correct about the TTF embedding bit, though it is trivial to override
and is in fact *necessary* to override in many cases as many
completely free fonts nevertheless have the embed bit set by
overzealous programs.

I believe I should amend my statement to say that none of the
proposals floated on this list have placed "limiting the author" as a
priority in any way.  If any limitations have been requested, it is on
the website viewers.  Author limitations haven't come up once in any
of the many, many messages that have been sent on this topic, to the
best of my memory.

So, the effect of licensing terms on page authors is still apparently
orthogonal to discussion of an interoperable webfont format.

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:38:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:32 UTC