- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:07:34 -0500
- To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, 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 6:56 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] wrote: >>> 1. Purposely breaking interop with desktop OSes (EOT, any obfuscation >>> proposal, most compression proposals). >> >>That is reason enough for W3C TAG to object to any >>such proposal, in my opinion. > > Not sure why that would be the case. If it enables more fonts to be licensed for web use, then why would they object? This argument is disingenuous. If Mozilla were to come up with a new font format that was 100% supported by every font foundry, but it was solely licensed under the GPL (effectively preventing MS from using it in IE), that would still be unacceptable. The most important metric here is number of users reached, not number of fonts allowed. (At least, IMO.) Fonts allowed is still an important metric, mind you, but not the *most* important metric. Any solution must be have interop with all browsers. (Note that I'm not defending Thomas's specific assertion here, that breaking interop with desktop OSes is against the mission of the W3C. We are trying to come up with some acceptable webfont formats for browsers, not a general font format for all uses. Compatibility with things other than browsers and other web-consumers is unnecessary, but would personally be nice.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:08:35 UTC