RE: EOT & DMCA concerns

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:57 -0400, Richard Fink wrote:
> Tuesday, August 04, 2009 Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>:
> 
> >We are going in circles here which only reinforces my
> >point that the other browser implementers ought to
> >form a WG and sanctify TTF/OTF and contemplate same-origin+CORS.
> >As it stands, the EOT* discussion is a fanciful waste
> >of time.


That's mostly where I'm at although I do have
some (perhaps overly masochistic) sense of responsibility
to my colleagues to point out where they are going off
the rails.  

-t






> 
> Thomas, 
> 
> So please stop fancifully wasting your time. I'm sure no one here will blame you. Come back when the subject gets around to sanctifying TTF/OTF.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lord
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:29 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Cc: Sylvain Galineau; Håkon Wium Lie; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: EOT & DMCA concerns
> 
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:22 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > Thomas,
> > 
> > I believe all prior discussions has made it clear that browser vendors have no 
> > interest in supporting EOT, 
> 
> They have no interest in implementing it's "protection"
> features and wish to steer clear of the patent issues.
> If those obstacles are cleared, the situation changes
> and then it is they who merit criticism rather than 
> EOTL backers.
> 
> 
> 
> > and this is why EOT-Lite was introduced. Your attempt to somehow
> > establish a connection between EOT-Lite and EOT-Classic is 
> > counter-productive.
> 
> I am not "establishing" that connection - it is central
> to the point of EOTL.
> 
> We are going in circles here which only reinforces my
> point that the other browser implementers ought to
> form a WG and sanctify TTF/OTF and contemplate same-origin+CORS.
> As it stands, the EOT* discussion is a fanciful waste
> of time. 
> 
> -t
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > You do not need to support EOT-Classic to enable support for MTX compression, it can be made a part of EOT-Lite implementation if we see the value and browser vendors agree to implement it. Monotype offer is not tied to supporting original EOT format only, it is still valid if MTX is chosen to be part of EOT-Lite (with no ties to EOT-Classic).
> > 
> > Vladimir
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Thomas Lord
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:46 PM
> > > To: Sylvain Galineau
> > > Cc: Håkon Wium Lie; www-font@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: EOT & DMCA concerns
> > > 
> > > Sylvain, given the position you describe here,
> > > will you have any problem at all advocating that
> > > all the font vendors at the table, and Microsoft,
> > > should heartily endorse a draft Recommendation
> > > that says UAs "MUST" implement EOTL but "SHOULD"
> > > implement EOTC-sans-enforcement?  And calling upon
> > > Monotype to liberate MTX patenting in support of
> > > that?   To thus advocate would seem to be consistent
> > > with what you are saying here.   Such endorsement
> > > would help to make very clear that people generally
> > > don't expect EOTC to serve as a "protection" format
> > > in the future and that other browser implementers
> > > are not legally constrained should they choose to
> > > support it.
> > > 
> > > -t
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:37 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > > > > From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> > > > > Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:58 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is a real concern. By accepting EOTL (and not EOTC) browser
> > > > > vendors accept to ship an inferior product.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it inferior ? EOTC ships on a majority of browsers today and,
> > > except for
> > > > certain regions (India, Korea) remains unused and shall likely remain
> > > so as long
> > > > as it remains browser-specific. EOTC would quite likely be
> > > considered inferior
> > > > to EOTL if it were implemented by all browsers.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you now believe interoperability makes a format inferior to
> > > its proprietary
> > > > alternative ? That seems odd.
> > > >
> > > > >Microsoft marketing would quickly claim that only they "fully
> > > support EOT".
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft marketing has done so and can still claim today that only
> > > we support EOT. Given
> > > > how brilliantly that's worked I'm sure you needn't lose sleep over
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > > Font vendors might give rebates to those who are willing to
> > > "protect" the
> > > > > fonts with root strings, at which point supporting non-IE browsers
> > > suddenly starts
> > > > > costing money. This is not a compelling scenario, and I don't think
> > > > > consensus around EOTx is possible.
> > > >
> > > > Are there reasons to believe authors would be interested ? Given that
> > > authors want a
> > > > cross-browser solution badly enough that the one that already works
> > > in IE today is
> > > > left largely unused despite its high market share, I very much doubt
> > > this is relevant since...
> > > > the EOT rebate already exists today ! Commercial web fonts are only
> > > available in that format.
> > > >
> > > > >This is not a compelling scenario, and I don't think consensus
> > > around EOTx is possible.
> > > >
> > > > The scenario is very hypothetical and deeply flawed. There has in
> > > fact been quite a bit of
> > > > progress on this proposal in the past few weeks.
> > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:20:05 UTC