W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: the discussion is over, resistance time

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 23:33:32 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: luke whitmore <lwhitmore@gmail.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020BEEEE@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Which in practice - i.e. the way the feature is used in the field - means a same-origin check is done on the file on
Behalf of the license holder. I gather that if the same-origin rule is embedded in the file, then people assume it
constitutes DRM. Let's just say the number of non-lawyers making that claim vastly outnumbers the real one but I'm open to
an expert opinion. (as in, from a real lawyer with an expertise in the matter).

I note that Firefox 3.5 does a same-origin check on web fonts by default. I'm not aware of any standard that requires it as of now.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
>Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:24 PM
>To: Sylvain Galineau
>Cc: luke whitmore; www-font@w3.org
>Subject: RE: the discussion is over, resistance time
>On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 23:07 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>>  For all the rhetoric on this mailing list and others, font
>> vendors are not asking for DRM. They never did.
>Microsoft did:
>4.3.1 RootString Usage
>User Agents must validate that the page using the embedded font is
>within the list of URLs from which the embedded font object may be
>legitimately referenced.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 23:34:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC