Thank you Simon.

hhp

Thanks Si!

ChrisL

We had the first call this morning and I think it was quite productive. Planning to have a second call - let me know if you’re interested in joining.

The timing last time wasn’t good for me.
Don’t mind me too much, but next time if
the timing is good I’ll definitely join in.

hhp

Was thinking maybe 8am West coast time (to facilitate Europe) on Monday the 15th. Does that work for you? If not please let me know here or off-list what times might work.

Last call for participants!

Too late, too late will be the cry when fonts on the web have passed you by.

I’m still having difficulty wrapping my head around this.
Maybe I will understand it better after the ATypI panel discussion.

It sounds like a group conference via a group telephone call arrangement of some kind. Looks like I got here a bit late, but thanks for posting hte info anyway Sii. It’s just good to know W3C is interested in hearing from fontmakers directly. I mean, it’s an encouraging development.

j a m e s

Yep, sorry you weren’t able to make it. Notes from the calls should be posted shortly.

Cheers, Si

Thank you for organizing the phone conference, Simon.

I have to post an extra thank you to Sii because he is one of the type biz’s leading technical people and he has done a flawless job of keeping us informed and saddled up on the whole web fonts issue. You can trust this man, and Thomas Phinney too, to get the facts right and coordinate the interests of all players with maximum relevance and diplomacy.

Looks like I was right about W3C and Jim Puckett was a little too skeptical of their role. Perhaps somebody at W3C read one of the recent threads we had here and took the hint. However it transpired, thanks, guys. The best way to move forward on web fonts is together.

j a m e s

Glad to hear that the W3C is a little less out there than I suspected.

good news.

—————
Paul Ducco
Graphic Design Melbourne

“When I talk to type designers and foundry representatives about issues related to Web fonts...”

You keep trotting this out, as you did in the conference call, without mentioning names.
Supply me with a list of the type designers and foundry representatives who support EOT and have significant IP at risk.
I can fix it. ;-)

Cheers!

“When I talk to type designers and foundry representatives about issues related to Web fonts they often state that they feel as if they don’t have a voice that’s heard by standards bodies and browser makers.”

A specific example would be Nick Shinn here on Typophile, who felt that the W3C would not listen to type designers concerns.

>Supply me with a list of the type designers and foundry representatives who support EOT and have significant IP at risk.

I can’t speak for type designers or foundries other than Microsoft, and I’ve actually stated publically that few currently support EOT in their EULAs. However, I can state with confidence that the number of font vendors considering supporting EOT is infinitely larger than those considering the alternative.

Here’s the thread in question...

http://typophile.com/node/46896

...2nd post down.

Cheers, Si

”...Nick Shinn here on Typophile, who felt that the W3C would not listen to type designers concerns.”
Clearly, I would not listen to Nick on this topic either, sorry. Who else?

“I can state with confidence that the number of font vendors considering supporting EOT is infinitely larger than those considering the alternative.”
Maybe, we have different definitions of infinity. Font vendors considering supporting EOT are dealing with the ’alternative’ that’s been adopted by the w3c, consideration is/was not a consideration. Should we deal with EOT too? with users having both? and with neither? and ’explain’ it all to font designers, lawyers, licensees, and web designers? How? EOT is not a new font format, and since it is the most illegal and dangerous of the options, I cannot support the proposed version.

“We analyzed 30+ EULAs and none allowed posting to Web sites.”
Surprise! For an active vendor in this area to allow posting to Web sites, would require a linking situation with either accountability, or other protection, and then a EULA can be written.

In the mean time, all in favor of Microsoft’s call to join ’Web Font Linking Wars’, please step forward.

Cheers!

>Who else?

Dezcom. I think he made similar observations re the lack of a voice.

>I cannot support the proposed version.

And that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with sitting on the sidelines. As you know, because you were on the call (for some reason you failed to mention your “illegal and dangerous” objections???) that we see EOT, as currently spec’d, as a “Version 1” technology, and we don’t expect it to be embraced by every font vendor (heck, some don’t even allow PDF of SWF embedding!). But it’s a starting point that can be built upon by the community (ie. the font community) and not a bunch of browser makers who don’t care about people who make fonts.

But theoretically as EOT is bad and font linking, as currently implemented, is bad. What’s your alternative?

“Dezcom. I think he made similar observations re the lack of a voice.”

Si, my comments were directed to the end of having all the stakeholders get a voice before something is done we may all regret. My problem is that I am not knowledgeable enough to speak for anyone other than to say that those who know more about the technology and the potential ramifications in the type community should be speaking up. I am concerned about intellectual property rights of all designers and foundries and the potential for easily stealing type. More than that—I think it is another way to convince the public that type is free because it can distributed free from a web browser so why should they have to pay for it for print use..

ChrisL

Were the notes from the call posted to the ATypI list and not Typophile?

So far the notes (prepared by Bert) have been passed to the people invovled in the conference calls. They need to be updated based on the second call. Then if there are no corrections from the participants they’ll be posted to the W3C site.

Simon: “There’s nothing wrong with sitting on the sidelines.”
I’m a player, coach, and owner and so I know when it is half time.
You must, by the furiousness of your horn-blowing, be with the marching band.

”...(for some reason you failed to mention your “illegal and dangerous” objections???)”
I did no such thing. Community-building, is a good reason. You were the one who said there are hundreds of EOTs out there we don’t know about. I shut up for your sakes in front of your guests. I’ll be no more polite in the future, if you insist.

”...that we see EOT, as currently spec’d as a “Version 1” technology,...”
The spec itself says version 3.3 — I wish it was 1.0, and start it right. How far off is it? How can I take the notion of a transportable font format with panose values in it seriously, when bull boobs keep coming to mind?

“But it’s a starting point that can be built upon by the community (ie. the font community) and not a bunch of browser makers who don’t care about people who make fonts.”
Oh those evil browser makers. I’m not say