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 15:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <21748731.68491248475311443.JavaMail.root@cm-mail02.mozilla.org>
John Hudson wrote: 

>> 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?
> Because its a hack, because it exposes the font to unknown dependencies
> in which it might not function correctly, and because we've spent the
> past ten years getting good at producing fonts to spec rather than
> putting in hacks to solve short-term software issues. We want a nice
> clean web font spec, against which we can test our products. Further,
> some of us have customers whose procurement requirements would prevent
> us from delivering fonts with corrupt data.

Name tables can be obfuscated without being "corrupt", they can be
entirely copasetic but constructed in such a way that they would
effectively be unusable in desktop apps.
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:42:32 UTC

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