Re: .webfont Proposal

On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 13:58 -0700, John Daggett wrote:
> > My objection in part to using the license record of the name table of
> > particular font formats is that it implies a design principle wherein
> > for every single damn media file format of any kind, we need to add
> > new rules for the equivalent of interpreting a "license record of the
> > name table".
> > 
> > A generic solution - a container format - a wrapper format - can nail
> > the issue once and for all across all media types.
> 
> A generic solution would be fine but what you propose doesn't exist and
> would take a much longer time to agree upon and implement. 


I don't especially disagree.  If I were king of the
world I would decree:  TTF/OTF plus EOT-lite plus
this wrapper thing.  TTF/OTF is essential for many 
obvious reasons.  EOT-lite gets us retroactive 
interop very quickly.  The wrapper is how we earn our
pay by doing something progressive.


>  I'm not
> really talking about "interpreting" anything, I'm only considering a
> common format for information that is passed through.  Fonts just happen
> to already have a convenient place to put this information, which is not
> necessarily true for other media types.


Yes, our predecessors in the standards field left
a muddle.  May as well clean it up, no?  If not we,
then who?


> The problems of HTML5 video is a whole separate can of worms, the main
> issues there are *not* the same, 

Nominally.   I suspect that the blockages are actually
very similar in the internal discussions the players had.

> the issues of conflict center around
> patent and royalty issues.  

The "tell" is that some of those issues as stated
are pretty thin and unconvincing.


> Licensing concerns are also an issue but 
> it's not the primary cause of the conflict.

Not on the record, anyway.

-t



> John
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 21:08:39 UTC