- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:47:19 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote: > Also sprach Thomas Phinney: > > > > > There is a lot of talk to the effect that concerns TTF/OTF support > > > > will lead to "accidental piracy" are the main motivation for > > > > resistance to TTF/OTF. I am beginning to believe that that is not > > > > really the motivation but, rather, exclusion by incumbents against > > > > potential competitors is the driver. > > > > > > I support your analysis. > > > > Well, that "analysis" is simply wrong. Not to mention offensive, as it > > requires the assumption that all the font vendors who have discussed > > the issue are lying. > > I dont't think so. For one, there are two relevant markets: fonts and > browsers. You seem to only to consider the font market? Not *only*, but the original quote said "incumbents" (plural). If one is only talking about the browser market, there is only one EOT-supporting incumbent, which is Microsoft. So I presumed that Thomas (and by extension you in supporting him) was referring to font vendors, either alone or in conjunction with Microsoft. Thomas did not correct me from that perception in my earlier response on the topic. T
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 16:48:00 UTC