- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 14:26:20 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Ben Weiner <ben@readingtype.org.uk>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:12 +0200, François REMY wrote: > >> False. EOTC has been proposed as standard by Microsoft and all >> technologies related to him (MTX...) are beeing opened by Microsoft >> and Monotype Imaging. Any browser could implement EOTC. >> >> The problem is that no browser *want* to do so. > > None of the other browser makers want to implement > the protection features of that proposal. If > people who currently have restricted license fonts > in the wild in EOT were to assert that other browsers > should go ahead and implement EOT but without any > kind of enforcement, some other browser implementers > would likely still object but the case in favor would > at least be a lot stronger. Do you have any reason to believe that authors in the wild would ask for that? Or is this just part of your charming hypothetical? ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:27:18 UTC