- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:44:58 +0000
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] >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. 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