Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

Side note: Although technically there is a distinct OpenType spec, in
practice at this point the Open Font Format (OFF) spec revision
process is what's being foll.owed. That is, it's an open process in
which Microsoft and Adobe don't have any more (official) power than
anybody else.

As with other standards, certain organizations and people have some
form of seniority and are much more influential than others, of
course.

Cheers,

T

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Fynn<cfynn@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> Of course if MSIE were to agree to support OTF linking, as far as I can see
> there seems to be nothing preventing those responsible for maintaining the
> OTF spec (MS & Adobe) from including something like a machine readable EEULA
> table <http://www.eeulaa.org/> in a future version of *that* spec. A later
> version of MSIE might then enforce whatever restrictions were in that table
> (if present in a font).
>
> - CF
>
>
> Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>>
>> Also sprach John Hudson:
>>
>>  > But your comments imply that the only resistance to TTF/OTF linking is
>>  > from Microsoft. In terms of browser makers, this may be the case, but  >
>> there is also resistance to TTF/OTF linking from the makers, sellers and  >
>> owners of fonts
>>
>> Indeed, there are various kinds of resistance from font vendors. I
>> met many of them at Atypi in St Petersburg last year. Some object to
>> all forms of web-based distribution, some want strong DRM, some want a
>> token technical barrier, and some say that TTF/OTF will work fine
>> (given the right license terms).
>>
>> Personally, I think that license terms is a better enforcer that
>> technical means, but I'm also open for a technical solution:
>>
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0412.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -håkon
>
>



-- 
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."
- Sir Winston Churchill

Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 19:10:21 UTC