- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:14:34 -0400
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
- Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > The important point is that we seem to agree we need a universally supported web font wrapper that would allow to put "signs and fences" to reduce a risk of font piracy to a level that would be acceptable for font foundries. It seems to me like the primary issue is the "universally supported" part. And particularly, getting a format that Microsoft, Mozilla, and preferably Apple are all willing to support. A standard that isn't supported by at least Microsoft and Mozilla is not very useful, or at least not more useful than EOT or OpenType alone. I think various people from Mozilla have laid down their requirements fairly clearly. The format must be fully and openly specified, and must not be patent-encumbered (with or without field-of-use restrictions). It also preferably shouldn't (or must not?) contain restrictions that are part of the font file itself, since these might raise DMCA issues. This is my recollection of what the people from Mozilla have said in the past. I would think that if IE supported a format that met these requirements, Firefox would most likely be willing to support it too. We've heard a lot from various representatives of font foundries on their requirements. But has Microsoft said anywhere what their requirements are for supporting a format? I haven't seen the sort of clear statements from Microsoft that I've seen from Mozilla (but that might just be me).
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 16:15:17 UTC