- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:43:00 +0000
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: luke whitmore <lwhitmore@gmail.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] > >On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 18:46 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> As I noted elsethread, Thomas, rootstrings are functionally identical >> to same-origin restrictions. > >Wow, this is really tripping people up. > >No, they are not functionally identical. > >A server might be reasonably configured to >refuse certain requests for a font. Systems >like CORS allow conforming browsers to >streamline and simplify that server's right >of refusal. Not quite. CORS aims to enable same-origin policy overrides. It does not refuse access, it allows access to resources that would otherwise not be loaded. It's an allow mechanism. > >A system of rootstrings forbids a client from >performing certain computations with a file that >is already in hand, if the client is to be called >conforming. This refusal is in spite of the fact >that no interop enhancement is thus obtained. The first sentence is correct. The second does not logically follow. Today, Mozilla may reject a web font that WebKit would not. That is not interoperable even though rootstrings are not involved.
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 00:43:42 UTC