RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Lord []

>On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 23:56 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Thomas Lord [] wrote:
>> >> 1. Purposely breaking interop with desktop OSes (EOT, any
>> >> 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.
The expense is already high today, so you should demonstrate how the proposed solution inflates today's costs.

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:45:40 UTC