Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 19:27 +0200, karsten luecke wrote:
> Thomas Lord wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 22:39 +0200, karsten luecke wrote:
> >> >> Are you (Thomas Lord) implying that some type designers 
> >> >> or foundries try to "kick out" collegues just by asking
> >> >> browser developers to only support a font format that not
> >> >> everybody can produce?
> > > No.
> 
> Then what please DID you say when you wrote
> 
> > 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.

It's quite simple but apparently worth saying again:

Three possibilities have been discussed:

1) Standardize only TTF/OTF for web fonts.
2) Standardize only some other format for web fonts.
3) Standardize both.

Some font vendors and Microsoft have objected to 
(1) on the grounds that they do not wish to legally
permit the presence of their restricted license fonts
on the web in TTF/OTF format for fear of rampant 
unauthorized use.

Several parties, notably most browser implementers,
have objected to (2) on the basis of existing TTF/OTF
support in many browsers and concerns about interoperability.

Strong arguments in favor of (3) have been put forward
yet these have met indications of refusal from Microsoft
and the font vendors.  No rationale has been offered for 
that refusal and so we are left to speculate.   In speculating,
we look at what difference (3) makes and the exclusion of
competition seems to be the largest difference.   Thus,
I (and I'm apparently not alone) begin to think that that
exclusion is the motivation for refusing (3).

-t

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 17:43:45 UTC