Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

2008/11/12 Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>:
> Also sprach Levantovsky, Vladimir:
>
>  > 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.
>
> I support your efforts in trying to find a compromise, one that all
> listed vendors can support. Do you think they will support a scheme
> that is not based on root strings?

I suggest a scheme with root strings not based on ENFORCING them, but
INFORMING people about them and about full license texts. This is the
key difference between DRM and DRE.

The latest browsers all have drop-down bars that slide down from the
top of the viewport (I think FF started it and Ie now uses it a lot)
and FF3 even has big in-your-face noticing UIs for phishing sites.
Those features can be repurposed easily as the UI for DRE, the
mechanics of which are best suggested by Tom Lord's MIME notices. All
fonts already have metadata license fields for license texts, and
duplication of licensing data in EEULAAs seems risky.

I think consensus around this issue is possible, if it is presented in
a way that convinces foundries it will stop casual unauthorised use.

> And, will Microsoft add support for
> normal TTF files in IE, as well as the restricted format? If the
> answers to these questions are yes, we're a lot closer to reaching
> consensus.

I would dearly like to hear more about the IE position on non-EOT compromises.

Regards,
Dave

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 12:55:37 UTC