- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:01:24 +0100
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, www-style@w3.org
2009/6/22 Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>: > On Monday, June 22, 2009 5:49 PM Jonathan Kew wrote: >> >> In regard to your last comment: >> >> > I am afraid to do what John proposed would be absolutely impractical >> > and >> > prohibitively expensive from the production process point of view. I >> > cannot see how we can put this burden on our customers, and I don't >> > think that modifying every single copy of a font licensed for web >> > use by >> > changing its name will work, especially because I'd imagine that > most >> > font EULAs would also allow non-web use where normal, full-featured >> > font >> > versions with proper names and styles have to be supported. >> >> 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? > > I find it even hard to imagine that we would ever "ask" our customers to > do this. In essence, it can only be done by hand, Um, that makes no sense at all; a child could write a program that replaces the names inside a font file with "No Trespassing" strings.
Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 23:02:21 UTC