- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:35:26 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, 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>
Håkon wrote: > Personally, I think that license terms is a better enforcer than > technical means, but I'm also open for a technical solution: License terms need to be policeable, in ways that don't mean that we spend all our time chasing pirates instead of making new fonts. So I like the idea of single-origin linking as described here: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0412.html Compression should benefit everyone, so seems a no-brainer. I'm afraid I can't claim to have read all of the >200 emails of the last few days. I am wondering if you, or someone else, can summarise what *technical* objections Microsoft might have to a scheme such as you describe, other than that they already support EOT in their browser. JH
Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 20:43:12 UTC