- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:00:33 -0700
- To: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.org>
- CC: www-font@w3.org
Dirk Pranke wrote: > Apart from the first paragraph, I am curious what you believe "what > kinds of protections [the browser makers] would be willing to accept" > to be. The kind that the current draft versions of .webfont and ZOT provide. There's been enough positive engagement with .webfont from John D and Håkon to make it reasonable to conclude willingness to accept the minimal protection in that format, and the ZOT proposal came from within Mozilla. I know that John and Håkon are not the only non-IE browser makers subscribed to this list, but they are the only ones very actively involved in the conversation -- not just here, but also on the Typophile forums --, so I apologise if I am assuming too much if I use their positive response to gauge general acceptability of these proposed formats including their minimal protections. JH PS. I should add that your message earlier this month http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0412.html was a significant contribution to the discussion. Thanks for that.
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 03:01:18 UTC