- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:45:10 -0500
- To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:25 PM Dave Singer wrote: > > At 13:18 +1300 12/11/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >I'm trying to be reasonable. I was just pointing out that > the statement > >"The Web developer's choice of fonts should not in any way > be affected > >by the technology we are developing - he should be free to > choose any > >font (free, commercial, proprietary, etc.) that satisfies > his needs." > >is untenable. We all agree that there are restrictions on which > >technologies are acceptable, and those will probably cause some font > >vendors to not allow Web usage, which will restrict Web developers' > >choice of fonts. > > > > I think we may be at cross-purposes here. Designing a setup > in which freely-usable fonts can be delivered 'unimpaired, > unrestricted' and restricted fonts can be delivered with some > indication/encouragement-to-observe their restrictions, is > not, prima facie, untenable to me. > > Now, if you are saying that some set of font vendors will > always be able to say "that's not good enough for me, you > cannot use this font on the web" I agree. I would hope that > that set is small, but it's only a hope. I agree, there may be someone who could say it's not good enough. What we do know for a fact is that Adobe, Ascender, Bitstream, ITC, Linotype, Microsoft and Monotype have said it would be an acceptable solution, and there are many more smaller foundries and individual type designers who support these efforts. Regards, Vlad > -- > David Singer > Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc. >
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:44:57 UTC