- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:20:44 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.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>
Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] wrote: >On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: >> 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. Okay, I'm sorry, I should have said "if it helps maximize Users*BrowserSupport*FontsAvailable, why would they object?" -Chris
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:21:29 UTC