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

Re: the discussion is over, resistance time

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:22:07 +0300
Message-ID: <4A4DCDBF.9090606@peda.net>
To: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Thomas Lord wrote:
> 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:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-EOT-20080305/#RootString
> 
> 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.

I agree with Thomas that if W3C recommends a font format, it MUST NOT
include a requirement ("MUST") for honoring the embedded RootString.

I'd accept a "SHOULD" or "MAY" as in "User Agents SHOULD/MAY validate
that the page using the embedded font is within the list of URLs from
which the embedded font object may be legitimately referenced." (This
allows a vendor to not implement such check for
interoperability/ideological/any other reasons.)

Using "MUST" there is a requirement for a DRM system (no matter how
trivial it would be to break that system).

-- 
Mikko


Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 09:22:51 GMT

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