RE: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir


> Right, so what is not useful about it?

In this case, I don't really see the point of requiring the user to be notified if it can be done in such a way that user 
may never ever see said notification. The concerns you raise strongly imply a modal notification in order to be
useful and effective. Like the one mentioned by Richard.

Unless you're thinking of *recommending* as opposed to *requiring* it ?
 
>> They may or may not check the log though.
>> They should. But they may not. So now, do you want to require this 
>> warning to be modal ?

> I believe Richard Fink has mentioned that Font Squirrel's online @font-face converter presented a pup-up dialog that required users to attest they have the rights to do font conversion, and I responded to him that I do not 
> think it is a good idea. What makes you believe something like this would ever be presented as a requirement?

I outlined a scenario whereby this requirement could be followed as you described it without the user knowing unless she takes extra steps to seek the notification in a log. 
Is that sufficient ? As well as a scenario - namely background batch production; if one believes TTF-WOFF conversion to be a common task then that should be on the table - where 
a modal warning is highly undesirable and thus harmful to the tool maker's ability to satisfy their customer. In this case the requirement would likely be ignored or a switch made available 
to turn it off, with no direct impact  whatsoever on the conformance of the fonts produced by the tool or the user's level of compliance with licensing terms. 

I maintain that if this is indeed a useful feature for users, tool makers will provide it. All that needs to be specified is which bit(s), if any, has(ve) meaning for WOFF generation purposes and
what that meaning is.

Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 22:03:53 UTC