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

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:46:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1618438662.20100517224615@w3.org>
To: Ben Weiner <ben@readingtype.org.uk>
CC: www-font@w3.org
On Monday, May 17, 2010, 1:43:13 PM, Ben wrote:

BW> I don't understand though how this comes within the scope of the
BW> W3C's work. 

Its within scope because the charter specifically includes authoring tools.

And its in scope there because it was recognized that to get WebFonts really working we need rendering implementations, generators, converters, and so on. And fonts licensed to be used as WOFF. The full spectrum.

BW> What is the purpose of writing specifications that
BW> cover tools that play no part in the process of using  WOFF files
BW> on the web? Are there equivalent W3C specs for the tools to make HTML files? Should there be?

Yes, there are. For example

Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

However, having answered your general question, that doesn't mean that for this specific case I am in favour of any pop-up boxed reminding content creators to read their EULA. 

On the contrary, I think that whether the content creator is using a font within the terms of its license is a matter between the issuers and users of a license.

Or their respective lawyers, if they agree.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 20:47:27 UTC

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