- From: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:48:34 -0400
- To: rfink@readableweb.com
- Cc: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, <www-font@w3.org>, <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>, <howcome@opera.com>
On Jul 6, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Richard Fink wrote:
> Tal, you're right. Nobody knows. But upon who else would the risk be
> upon
> except the producer of the font?
You seem to be missing my point. I brought it up to explain why font
makers are concerned about raw OTF/TTF. I'm not saying that the risk
could go anywhere else given the technology that is being discussed.
> And the question posted on Typophile is this:
I'm sorry. I don't follow Typophile. Very few professional font
designers have time to follow it on a day-to-day basis. Typophile is
very good for many things, but using it as a quick barometer of the
professional font developer world is not one of them.
> Now, I found this question a little too passive for my taste. And I
> crafted
> my own which appears at the tail end of this response. You see, I
> would
> rather hear a small percentage of font vendors voice an enthusiastic
> "Yes"
> to MY question, than a foot-dragging, tepid "Yeah. OK. If that's the
> best we
> can do..." response to Jonathan's question.
It's not a simple yes or no question, plus it was a holiday weekend
here in the US, plus not many type designers are subscribed to this
list ("I don't have the stomach for it." is the reason most often
given. I can't say that I blame them.), plus many type designers are
waiting to see what the browser developers say, plus there are some
implementation questions, etc.
For what it is worth, I sent Jonathan my response off-list along with
some questions about the ZOT format. And, I spent an afternoon over
the weekend writing a ZOT encoder.
Tal
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 18:49:51 UTC