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 15:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6717767.67961248474448746.JavaMail.root@cm-mail02.mozilla.org>
John Hudson wrote:

>>> 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?
> 
>> If the EULA requires same-origin restrictions, then Firefox is the
>> only browser that can implement EOT-Lite and comply with this EULA
>> in the very near term.
> 
>> And that's a problem for you why ?
> 
> It is also a licensing issue, not a format or implementation issue.
> Single-origin checking is something that font developers want and
> may indeed put into standard license agreements for web fonts. On
> the other hand, we are aware that it won't be backwards compatible,
> and if there are customers who have specific compatibility needs
> then custom licenses are possible. A license might even specify
> exceptions to the single-origin checking for specific browser
> versions. This is a decision font makers will need to consider from
> a business perspective.

This issue of a new font format is *entirely* a licensing issue.  My
point was simply that EOT-Lite potentially affects the choice of fonts
available in non-IE browsers, since those font vendors who require
same-origin checking in *all* cases would not be able to license their
fonts for web use (or would need to require things like referrer
checking) because of this structural limitation.  Creating two font
files, a legacy EOT and a new format .webfont/ZOT, is a pain but
it does not have this limitation.
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:28:13 GMT

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