Re: Not replacing OTF/TTF linking

Reading your concerns I see that was probably not very clear when I
tried to explain my point of view.

I totally support the idea of an interoperable format. That's why
we're here, right?
I mean, I totally support the WebOTF proposal and EOT Lite also.

So, I'll reformulate my state: If we have more than one specific web
format working in the main
browsers, that seems to be a middle way until we can finally reach
full interoperability.

I just think that an interoperable solution will fundamentally deppend
of an adoption of these formats by different browser makers and I, as
a type designer, I'm waiting for it to happen, so a non-naked format
can become viable for licensing.

> Tab Atkins Jr said:
> No, from an author's (that is, *my*) perspective, that's the situation
> we have today, and it's horrible.  If we have Format 1 and Format 2,
> but neither is interoperably supported, then it's still a giant hassle
> to deal with, one that I probably don't even want to bother with if I
> can avoid it.

I understand and agree. Today I think that EOT Lite can be a good
intermediary solution if Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera can
implement it in the next months. WebOTF can be an even better long
term solution. I'm happy to see some progress here, and I'm waiting
for the people to get something similar to a consensus, so I can move
foward and work in a web licensing model that can operate in the real
word of web publishing - a solution that can be good for type
designers, web designers and authors.

Ricardo Esteves

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 16:11:30 UTC