- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:30:28 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- 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, 2009-08-06 at 16:02 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 14:26 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > >> > 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? > > > > Not exactly either. Rather: > > So, to answer the question I posed: no, you don't have any reason to > believe that. Why did you pose such a scenario if you don't believe > that it's true? As I explained, because of the brick wall of an impasse towards which EOTL is speeding. The suggestion is for a significant step towards breaking that impasse. You went on to say that you don't believe that impasse exists - that I am the only one concerned about EOTL's connection to EOT. There have been many messages on the list that contradict your belief. -t
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 23:31:08 UTC