Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach karsten luecke:
>>> - fundamentally, open standards don't benefit the dominant players
>>> in a market as they lower the barrier for competition (this is true
>>> for all markets, not just software)
>> EOT *is* an open (documented) standard.
> My comments were are about TTF/OTF, not EOT.

That's how I read it. Rephrasing your point:
"TTF/OTF doesn't offer dominant players any advantages since TTF/OTF fonts can be produced easily by competitors too. Hence MS, in terms of browsers, and bigger type foundries, in terms of fonts, favor EOT."

I better had said "format" rather than "standard", but by adding "(documented)" I think have made clear what I meant by "open". But this nitpicking about words only distracts from my point:
EOT is documented (now). Hence it should not be difficult for "competitors" including myself to write our own tools for producing EOT fonts, and share these tools with fellow collegues. The type world is pretty cooperative, helping out "competitors", big or small, is rather common.
We "competitors" of the "dominant players" are not in disadvantage in terms of EOT. This idea amuses me a lot -- as if a certain competence were bound to bureaucracy, money and/or tie.

Best wishes,

Received on Sunday, 5 July 2009 20:43:12 UTC