- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:22:50 -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 7:20 PM, Chris Wilson<Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com> wrote: > 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?" In which case I agree with you. ^_^ (Though BrowserSupport and Users are identical in this context - one is just a finer-grained version of the other.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:23:48 UTC