W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:44:00 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908041444r5494f3cfjb86f03f7eb395fe5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, www-font@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>  > > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser
>  > > vendors accept to ship an inferior product.
>  >
>  > Only in the sense that you are currently shipping an inferior product,
>  > and will continue to do so.  I don't think Opera considers itself
>  > inferior for not shipping EOT.
> Things change if you start supporting a "lite" version of a standards.
> People will expect you to soon start supporting the "full" standard.
>  > > Microsoft marketing would
>  > > quickly claim that only they "fully support EOT".
>  >
>  > That's claimable *right now*.
> Again, the comparison changes if competitors start supporting the
> "lite" version, thereby seemingly acknowleding that the standard is
> a good idea.
> I don't think "EOT Lite" is such a good idea. I don't *any* standard
> should have the word "lite" in it:
>  We begin with the name.  The members of the Rapporteur Group strongly
>  prefer "DSSSL Core" over "DSSSL Lite" as the name of the mandatory
>  subset of DSSSL, for two reasons.  First, "Lite" is the well-known
>  name of a particularly insipid brand of beer; and second, the term
>  "DSSSL Lite" suggests incorrectly that what is being referred to is a
>  standard parallel to and separate from DSSSL itself.  This discussion
>  is not about the establishment of a separate standard but rather about
>  the definition of a conformance level of DSSSL.
>  http://xml.coverpages.org/dssslCore1.txt

Then we can... call it something else?  If the name is what's making
you hang back, then we're basically done I guess.

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:45:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC