RE: A way forward

• From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
• Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:41:15 -0700
• To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
• Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <1248471675.7681.7.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>

On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 19:37 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> You're evading again, and very poorly so.

Sigh.  Really, Sylvain?  Really?  Nevertheless:

I suggest a different framing of the issue as two
questions:

(a) Does there exist some (any) reasonabler variation
of EOT-lite for which, if the other browsers implement that 
support, the other browsers and existing versions
of IE will all do the same, useful thing?

(b) Will restricted license type vendors agree to
license in that variant?

If the answer to both questions is "yes" then
that is a strong argument for that variant of 
EOT-lite.  

If the answers are (a) - yes and (b) - no
then that is a weaker but still positive argument
for that variant of EOT-lite.

If the answer has (a) - no, then there is no
point to even considering any variant of EOT-lite.


-t

Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 21:41:55 UTC