RE: Webfont compression

Thursday, July 23, 2009 Vladimir Levantovsky
<Vladimir.levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>

>The offer is unequivocal, and is contingent only on the adoption of the
technology as
>part of a web font solution (any solution, whether EOT or its derivative,
or any future webfont solution).

OK. So there is an IF. It is CONTINGENT. Only IF it's a part of a web font
solution. Otherwise, you're not going to do it.
Glad we got to the bottom of it.
But you know, you almost confused me again.
Let's transpose the sentences and rewrite it like this, so we're clear:

"Contingent only on the adoption of the technology as part of a web font
solution - any solution, whether EOT or its derivative, or any future
webfont solution - I made a promise on this list on behalf of Monotype
Imaging to offer unrestricted, GPL-compatible, royalty-free license for MTX
compression technology and the use of patents associated with it. The offer
is unequivocal."

Don't mean to bust your chops, Vlad, but the way things are going on this
list, I'm finding it hard to concentrate because my BS detector keeps going
off.
I guess it's gzip or nothin' for the moment. Although I am still waiting to
hear back from Bill Davis of Ascender on the question of licensing fonts
using the old EOT, with rootstrings and MTX compression.
An option I have always been led to believe, is royalty-free.

Regards,

rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Levantovsky, Vladimir
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:58 PM
To: rfink@readableweb.com; Chris Fynn; www-font@w3.org
Cc: karsten luecke
Subject: RE: Webfont compression

Rich,

I am not sure what Typophile discussion you are referring to - I've
never danced around any commitments that I make. 

I made a promise on this list on behalf of Monotype Imaging to offer
unrestricted, GPL-compatible, royalty-free license for MTX compression
technology and the use of patents associated with it. The offer is
unequivocal, and is contingent only on the adoption of the technology as
part of a web font solution (any solution, whether EOT or its
derivative, or any future webfont solution). 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0228.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0321.html

Bringing MTX to the public domain requires spending money and resources.
It is doable, but for this to happen I really need to hear that the
technology is going to be part of a future solution. The MTX
specification and source code is publicly available as part of EOT
submission [1], and, like I said earlier, Monotype is willing to work
with any interested party to make our IP available for the purpose of
developing, prototyping or implementing a future W3C Recommendation.

So far, I've only heard a healthy criticism and none of the browser
vendors expressed any interest in supporting MTX (EOT-Lite solution does
not require MTX support). And, if no one wants the MTX technology,
giving it away to public domain for no particular good reason and
spending time and money doing it wouldn't be justified (according to
your own admissions). We do have shareholders we need to answer to.

Regards,
Vladimir

[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-MTX-20080305/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fink [mailto:rfink@readableweb.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:30 AM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; 'Chris Fynn'; www-font@w3.org
> Cc: 'karsten luecke'
> Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> 
> Thursday, July 23, 2009 Vladimir Levantofsky
> <Vladimir.levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>:
> 
> Vlad,
> 
> I questioned Dave DeWitt at the TypeCon 2009 Web Fonts panel about
> Monotype's pledge to take MTX public domain or a functional
equivalent.
> Dave
> could not commit firmly. Can you?
> We've done a dance around this on typophile.com and still I sense
> hedging,
> bobbing, and weaving.
> "We'll make it open, IF..." is what I'm still hearing. What's the IF?
> Is
> there an IF or are you just going to do it?
> Enough already. There's plenty of reason to just do it so that it can
> be put
> back into the new EOT.
> It would also be seen as a gesture of goodwill by all concerned. At
> least,
> I'd play it up that way.
> 
> Unequivocally, what's the deal, Vlad?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of
> Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:46 AM
> To: Chris Fynn; www-font@w3.org
> Cc: karsten luecke
> Subject: RE: Webfont compression
> 
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:59 PM John Daggett wrote:
> >
> > Any of the solutions that have been proposed (webfont, EOT-Lite,
ZOT)
> > are relatively easy to implement, assuming no DRMish features are
> involved.
> >
> 
> On Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:41 AM Chris Fynn wrote:
> >
> > In this case, the so-called "interoperability" seems to be just a
> > pragmatic way of delivering a working cross-platform @font-face
> > solution to as many users as possible within the shortest possible
> time.
> >
> 
> On Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:12 AM Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >
> > It so happens that EOT Lite was stumbled upon as a format
> > that is supported by all currently relevant versions of IE, and is
> > fairly uncontroversial.
> >
> > The fact that we can make web fonts work in IE6 without any of the
> > more distasteful baggage of the EOT format is a glorious coincidence
> > that we would be remiss in not taking advantage of, for the sake of
> us
> > authors who just want to use pretty fonts yesterday.
> >
> > After that gets standardized, go crazy making a simpler format.  The
> > basic work will have been completed, and the urgent need to do
> > something, *anything*, will no longer be present.  You can spend
time
> > gathering opinions and debating technical points then.
> >
> 
> Indeed, this says it all!
> 
> As a result of the long and productive discussions we "stumbled upon"
> EOT-Lite solution that can be easily implemented and allows delivering
> a
> working cross-platform @font-face support to as many users as
possible,
> and in the shortest time possible. And because EOT-Lite is also
> supported by font vendors, it does mean that authors will have an
> opportunity to use custom fonts starting "yesterday", for the benefits
> of billions of web users around the globe.
> 
> Once we satisfied the urge to have a working @font-face solution, we
> can
> make a stub at developing a new  solution. Isn't it the way how the
> whole web has emerged - delivering a quick solution that works and
> refining it later? Support for legacy implementations has never
stopped
> the technical progress, and I am sure that as soon as we deliver
> working
> cross-platform support for @font-face today, we will be better
prepared
> to introduce a new, better solution that will become the de-facto
> standard 5 years from now.
> 
> Regards,
> Vladimir
>

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 03:38:44 UTC