W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:19:34 +0000
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2148B098@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson

> Why would they? 
Well, they might also not object because they might not even care. If UAs 
will load the result regardless, what is the consequence of not doing it or 
implementing it wrong ? Or what if the font maker gets their embedding bits 
wrong wrt their EULA, thus blocking the author by mistake...or allowing the
font to be converted when it shouldn't ? ("But the tool was OK with it...")

In practice, will web authors use a tool to generate a WOFF file, or will the
font maker give them that WOFF file ? Does the author get a TTF with a license
to make WOFFs out of it but only those can be used on the web, or does he get 
a no-web-use/no-conversion license for the TTF version and a separate WOFF with 
a web-use license ?

Do we know that converting TTFs to WOFF through dedicated tools is going to be
a common part of the workflow ? Do we know whether EULAs will allow or require the 
web designer to do this ?

I'm not sure we know whether this problem needs solving yet. Well, I'm sure *I* don't
know, at any rate :)

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 00:20:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:34 UTC