- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:16:08 -0700
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Ben Weiner wrote: > Agreed, it's daft, but I feel it is sad that an existing, working and > simple technological solution that is within the current W3 > recommendation has to die off solely to get font software publishers on > board. Makes them look like martinets, whatever the reality. Does it? From my perspective, I see a number of companies that have no investment in font IP implementing naked font linking, and a company that has invested millions of dollars in font IP rejecting that approach. That company doesn't look to me like a 'martinet'; it looks like a company that values something in which it has invested a lot of money, and believes naked font linking undermines the value of that investment. You may disagree with their analysis, but I think it is a mistake to characterise their stance as that of a martinet. One might just as easily, and perhaps no more accurately, characterise the stance of the proponents of naked font linking as 'free as in freeloader'. JH
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 18:16:50 UTC