- From: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:40:56 +0600
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
If same origin restrictions are enforced by the UA how can an EULA reasonably require them? Surely web authors cannot be held responsible for how particular browsers accessing their sites happen to behave in this regard. Or is the server supposed to check each time which UA is accessing the site and only serve web fonts to those it knows enforce same-origin restrictions? - C Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of John Daggett >> 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 ? >
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 08:42:19 UTC