- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:58:52 -0500
- To: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com> wrote: > "Forced"? I don't think so. No individual institution is going to be forced, obviously. But the market will provide, if there's demand. If only bare TTF works online and enough designers want high-quality fonts, someone is going to provide high-quality fonts licensed for use as bare TTFs, sooner or later. Maybe with a few years' lag, but we're going to have that anyway as @font-face support and awareness thereof increases gradually. This is the primary point, really. If you like I'll abandon all the others, because I think this one is sufficient. (Not that I think the other ones are wrong, just that they're weaker.) DRM, even very weak DRM, has not proven necessary for the massive proliferation of both free and proprietary images, videos, and text on the web, and it will not prove necessary for the proliferation of both free and proprietary fonts either. > But that doesn't even matter, because users and web *developers* aren't the market for web fonts. It's web *designers*, who are even more able to tell the difference. I'm assuming that visual decisions like font selection are targeted at the viewers of the site. If not, then who *are* they targeted at?
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 02:59:33 UTC