W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > April 2010

Re: WebFonts WG Kick-off

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <398305957.31920.1271926188351.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>

Christopher Slye wrote:

> Is there an argument to be made _against_ requiring SOR? I also agree
> it should be required, but I'm just wondering if that's a slam dunk,
> or if we need to anticipate complaints or arguments against it. I'm
> wondering if there's any history (i.e. traditional objections) to that
> kind of thing.

The argument against it is that it's inconvenient in some cases,
situations where a page is served from one host and resources from
another.  CORS can be used to relax this but it requires access at a
level that may not be available in some situations.  Not a common
scenario but it is possible.  But I don't think this a strong argument
against using it as the restriction generally aids the hosting service
by preventing cross-linking by default.

John
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:50:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:50:54 GMT