Re: New work on fonts at W3C

2009/6/22 Jonathan Kew <>:
> I'm not sure this is as impractical as you suggest. Vendors such as Monotype
> would continue to deliver "normal" fonts, but customers wishing to use those
> fonts on a web server would be required (by the EULA) to use a tool that
> replaces the names with "No Trespassing" signs -- how is this more
> burdensome than having to use a tool that converts the OTF font to EOT?

While Adobe has stated its intention to license web fonts for user
conversion, other font developers have stated their intention to vend
"pre-locked" EOT files.

However, the same applies: they would have to implement a EOT
conversion process on their servers which could just as easily be a
renaming process.

Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 21:54:30 UTC