W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Next step?

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:17:16 -0700
Message-ID: <4A83072C.5060808@tiro.com>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Ben Weiner wrote:

> Hmm, well actually I do not see why after all the discussion of garden 
> walls, DMCA actions and so on, MS wouldn't be able to revise their 
> (apparently ideological) position without accepting any additional risk 
> to their typefaces or anybody else's. 

I don't understand this statement, Ben. Microsoft's position, and that 
of most font makers, is that naked font linking is an unacceptable risk 
to font IP. How is that position revisable without accepting that risk? 
This position is no more 'ideological' than it is that of a 'martinet': 
it is the position of people who actually own a lot of font IP and have 
concerns about how it is exposed. If anything, I'd characterise it as a 
business policy position.

Personally, I think TTF/OTF should be removed from any W3C 
recommendation because they should never have been included in one in 
the first place. There should have been a web font working group to 
determine such a recommendation, and there wasn't one. The positions of 
numerous stakeholders was not taken into account. The objection of W3C 
member companies was not taken into account.

Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 18:17:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC