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

Re: .webfont Proposal 2

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:26:53 -0400
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0907180726u2dff539cm1d62f8f25c756378@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Håkon Wium Lie<howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach John Daggett:
>  > Is a user agent required to treat the contents of the <allow> element
>  > the same way EOT root strings are supposed to be handled?  If it is, I
>  > would object, otherwise I'm quite happy with a format that includes
>  > metadata that indicates any manner of licensing information, including
>  > root strings.
> I'm not comfortable having root strings, even if the specification
> says they can be ignored. For one, we could see heavy lobbying to
> remove the "can be ignored" part in the next version of the
> specification. Second, some judge somewhere could rule that his laws
> (DMCA perhaps) trumps any specification and that implementations
> therefore must "honor" root strings.

Don't enforce the root string, just refuse to render a font with a
root string at all. Anywhere.

Root strings then die a quick death in EOT Lite.


Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 14:27:30 UTC

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