- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:05:50 +0000
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:58 PM > To: Håkon Wium Lie; Tab Atkins Jr. > Cc: Thomas Lord; Thomas Phinney; John Hudson; www-font@w3.org > Subject: RE: EOT & DMCA concerns > > Would the name EOT-Neue or something similar alleviate your concern? > Support for a new version of something doesn't imply any obligation to > support older one. > > Vlad I think the idea is to drop the reference to EOT altogether. It's XYZ 1.0 and it's compatible with legacy browsers. Then 2.0 would be the nextgen long term' .webfont/ZOT successor. That's the message I'm getting anyway.
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:06:34 UTC