W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Minutes, 16 February 2011 WebFonts WG telcon

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:15:10 -0800
Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <E81358DD-8B25-42B8-AFD5-F2714FF25E63@apple.com>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>

On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:47 PM, John Daggett wrote:

> Dave Crossland wrote:
>> and CORS being off the table take us to is either WOFF with SOR being
>> addressed by FO or with SOR not being addressed.
>> Is CORS really totally off the table?
> CORS is a mechanism to relax a same-origin restriction.  The two
> options here are "same origin restriction by default with CORS to
> relax" vs. "From-origin with the default for all resource types
> set to unrestricted".

Those aren't the only two options, there is also:

- From-origin with the default for most resource types set to unrestricted, but defaulting to same-origin for fonts.

In general, what protocol to use to change restrictions on font embedding can be decoupled from the question of what the default is for fonts. As I said before, I think we have the following three distinct issues:

> The first option is what we've spec'ed so far.  To use
> 'From-Origin' would mean either delaying the WOFF spec until the
> details of 'From-Origin' are hashed out or decoupling the WOFF
> format from the discussion of origin restrictions altogether and
> issuing some form of addendum later after the details of From-Origin
> have been worked out.

Another option is to remove normative requirements on this topic from WOFF, spec linking restrictions in the CSS3 Fonts spec where they actually belong, and at most add a non-normative note about it to WOFF.

Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 03:16:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:15 UTC