- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:12:18 -0700
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
We agree more than we disagree. On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 15:04 -0700, John Hudson wrote: > Thomas Lord wrote: > > So does music, as any film maker or collector > > of Grateful Dead tapes can tell you. > As for collectors of Grateful Dead cassettes, rarity and exclusivity are > not the same thing. Rarity and exlusivity aren't the same but there exist a number of exclusively held tapes and some of those are every now and again released in commercial form. > Dirk was talking about retail digital music downloads by consumers, not > about specialised markets for new composition, use of music in film or > television, radioplay, etc. Stop confusing the matter with totally > irrelevant things. I don't think I'm confusing things. I think that a web font standard will greatly expand the non-design-professional, "consumer" use of fonts. Fonts look a little bit like music today, I think they will look a lot more like music "tomorrow". > I've been in the font business for long enough to know how it works, > know where the value is found in the products, know who the paying > customers are, know what happens to fonts in a digital environment, and > know what analogies are appropriate and which are not. I can do without > people who are not in this business trying to tell me how they imagine > it to be. I don't have any idea what the business model for developing a > web browser is, and I'm not going to presume to tell the browser makers > on this list what their business is. I'd appreciate the same basic respect. I think you stand to be surprised how a web font standard will change your industry. I think that based on empirical observations such as the one I described about my experience at CMU. Also there isn't "disrespect" going on here - there are engineers expressing best practices of certain infrastructure. For example, root string enforcement wasn't rejected because nobody on the browser side cares about the font vendors. It was rejected because it would violate long-standing, very deep architectural principles of the web, principles that long predate fonts and that are there for unassailable reasons. It is surely difficult to convey to a non-engineer why those principles are in place but they are. That is the brick wall you are running into, not a wall of disrespect. -t
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 23:12:59 UTC