RE: The unmentionable

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 Dirk Pranke <dpranke@chromium.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.

John Hudson replied, in part:

>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.

Dirk,

With the understanding, as you state, that you're not speaking for Chrome, Chromium, or Google in any way, does the "minimal protection" that John writes about seem in line with what you imagine the feelings of those involved with other non-IE browsers would be?

Regards,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Pranke
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:56 PM
To: John Hudson
Cc: www-font@w3.org
Subject: Re: The unmentionable

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> What the non-IE browser makers have indicated that they do not want is
> technical protections of a kind that would require them to enforce anything
> and potentially expose them to DMCA lawsuits. Such protections are not on
> the table.
>
> [ ... snip ... ]
>
> An attempt to interpret the clearly stated position of the browser makers to
> imply that *any* kind of protection at all is anathema and 'will not fly',
> is unsupportable. The browser makers have already indicated what kinds of
> protections they would be willing to accept in a web font format.

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.

-- Dirk

(Not speaking for Chromium, Google Chrome, or Google in any way)

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 03:45:16 UTC