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

Re: A way forward

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <476303.65391248469264367.JavaMail.root@cm-mail02.mozilla.org>
Richard Fink wrote:

> > This is what I mean about legacy behavior limiting the flexibility
> > of a new standard, with EOT-Lite font vendors can't enforce
> > same-origin restrictions which they seem to be asking for.
> 
> I must say, now that FF supports linking to raw font files, it's
> amazing how you have become an advocate for every font-vendor's wish!

I'm not an advocate, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies here.

> But your conclusion doesn't follow from the facts. What the new EOT
> does is what it does and as long as there is a line to cross between
> the web font file and the desktop, that seems to have broad support.
> Whatever the new EOT does, it does. Whatever the new standard does, it
> does. There is no limitation on "flexibility" - whatever that means -
> that holds over from one to the other.

Er, what? EOT-Lite fonts cannot be used if a EULA specifies that
same-origin restrictions are required, since legacy versions of IE
won't enforce any form of same-origin restriction.  Are you saying
that's incorrect? Or that the example was incorrect?
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 21:01:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT