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

Re: A way forward

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:19:09 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20907241519w501e88at1cd77675e033ccb1@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
2009/7/24 John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>:
>
> 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.

EOTlite can be cross site restricted for IE versions that don't
support CORS in the same way TTFs can be for Safari.

Presumably EOTlite supporters understood what you have said, and think
that is totally worth it for getting to widely supported web fonts
ASAP, since that is after all all that EOTlite has going for it over
other better proposals. That is to say, I speculate Ascender feels
this is an acceptable compromise. Perhaps someone from there can
confirm this?

But, if that is the case - if the existing cross site restriction is
good enough for foundries who support EOT, and their aim is to get
profiting from web fonts ASAP, why isn't supplying TTFs with corrupt
NAME tables and a changed file extension good enough?

That seems like an adequate speedbump; it has acceptable cross linking
restriction, installation in desktops is refused for such files, and
foundries can supply different files for desktop and web licenses. I
think it must be included in any summaries of the various proposals.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:20:14 GMT

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