RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

Sylvian,

Other than noting them in passing I will put
aside your distasteful and inappropriate references
to child molestation.

A simple question has been put before you repeatedly
which you have so far refused to answer:

If a W3C Recommendation provides at least two
font formats which UAs are required to support,
TTF/OTF and "something else", what objection have you?
What is the rationale for that objection?


-t






On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:47 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> 
> >Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback
> >
> >On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 18:30 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> >>
> >> >I interpolate, reasonably I think, that such unauthorized
> >> >use would be objectionable to these vendors because it
> >> >would lower the use value of renting a font from them.
> >> >If that is not the main concern, let me know.
> >>
> >> He is letting you know and you keep ignoring it. Do not be surprised
> >if
> >> others end up giving you the same treatment.
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >Now, you appear to contradict what we've heard.  You
> >appear to say that such unauthorized use is of no
> >concern to font vendors.
> >
> <snip>
> 
> Last attempt: since Thomas Phinney and others with professional expertise in the matter have repeatedly stated that
> your 'interpolation' is neither accurate nor 'reasonable', I find it dishonest on your part to repeat your theory yet again
> and then ask them to let you know if that is not their main concern.
> 
> In essence, the exchange sort of looks like this:
> 
> 'You're child molesters !
> 'No we're not'
> 'You're child molesters ! You're child molesters !'
> 'No. We're decidedly not'
> 'Well, according to my reasonable interpolation, you're child molesters. If that is not the case though, please let me know'.
> 
> I grant you that it has its entertainment value. But it is unnecessary, unhelpful, absurd and increasingly tiresome.
> But then I am under the illusion that you are attempting to engage in a conversation as opposed to a monologue. Maybe
> that's my mistake ?
> 
> I, for one, will no longer respond to such commentary. Whatever theories you have about Microsoft, font vendors or anyone else, and
> however reasonable *you* believe them to be, they do not entitle you to using this tone with anyone who disagrees and it certainly does not
> deserve more responses. At least I've tried. Good luck.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 22:09:40 UTC