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: 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>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020BF015@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>-----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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT