RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 23:56 +0000, Chris Wilson 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?

Because "more fonts" in your sense is a transient
concern and in this case it comes at high expense
to users.  It is the opposite of what a reputable 
standards party should do.

-t

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:14:49 UTC