- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:28:20 -0700
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 10:25 -0700, John Hudson wrote: > So instead you pretend there is some magical divide between free fonts > and non-free fonts. The idea that there should be multiple formats to > reflect the difference in IP or licensing status -- i.e. naked fonts for > free fonts and some different, probably wrapper format for non-free > fonts -- strikes me as daft. By that line of reasoning it follows also that it was a serious mistake for UAs to be able to display plain-ASCII text files. Some plain-ASCII text files are distributed only under restricted terms. Browser support for displaying them encourages their unauthorized spread via the web. Worse, because the desktop applications process ASCII, there is no "low garden wall" that prevents innocent users from compounding the problem by downloading these files and using them on their desktop. If we could do it all over again, perhaps browsers should avoid all support for ASCII. -t
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 18:29:02 UTC