Re: the discussion is over, resistance time

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