- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:46:47 +0100
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
2009/7/24 John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>: > Dave Crossland wrote: > >> But, if that is the case - if the existing cross site restriction is >> good enough for foundries who support EOT, and their aim is to get >> profiting from web fonts ASAP, why isn't supplying TTFs with corrupt >> NAME tables and a changed file extension good enough? > > We want a nice clean web font spec, against which we can test our products. There was I thinking we were rushing to monetise web fonts. I'm all in support of improving web fonts for users, but it seems that architecturally clean and powerful ideas that I favor (ie, Tom Lord's metadata-centric proposal that also ticks off all the speedbump checklist points; and .webfonts/ZOT to the extent that helps points users at licenses which I think its likely .webfonts would do given the 2.1 schema) are being de-prioritized against quick-to-market ideas. So I'm attempting to flesh out that end of the spectrum.
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:47:47 UTC