Re: cutting to the chase

I'm unsure how much further I am interested in continuing this
discussion, but I'll go along for now. However, most of your message
appears to be a time-wasting hypothetical: you think your newly
posited outcome (TTF/OTF + a new format in a single step
Recommendation) is not very likely.

Beyond that, you didn't answer my question about who has standing to
lodge a Formal Objection, but I see from reading appropriate process
documents that anyone can do so. Of course, in the end only W3C
members in good standing can vote.

But in general, whether the W3C Recommendation required BOTH a new
format and raw TTF/OTF, or only raw TTF/OTF, most retail type
foundries and professional type designers who fully understand the
implications would be Very Unhappy. Basically, they don't want to see
raw TTF/OTF support be universal, because as discussed previously,
they feel it is a threat to their basic livelihood.

Certainly having a new format as well would be better than only naked
desktop fonts, but still pretty scary to most font folks. However,
that's not what you're advocating (at least not in the short term) nor
what you think is likely, so it's a moot point how they'd react to the
joint situation.
.
How many would formally Object, in either case? Who knows? Depending
on how they perceive the process and what grounds for Objection seem
to be considered legitimate, any given foundry or type designer might
or might not Object. It seems pretty much a foregone conclusion that
at least some would. Probably a lot more if the proposed
Recommendation or stated purpose for forming the WG is to standardize
on naked desktop fonts alone.

> there is no Objection that will stand the "reasonable person" test

Where is this test described? A quick Google search for the terms
"Formal Objection" + "reasonable person" + W3C yields nothing.

Regardless, based on past history here, I can't assume your judgment
of what a "reasonable person" would think *necessarily* concurs with
everyone else's, or even a majority of other participants in the
discussion.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 12:22:48 UTC