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

Re: The unmentionable

From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:32:51 -0700
Message-ID: <3726d1bf0907291032g450b52fbtc77d989aa04db6f7@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:53 AM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> Dirk Pranke wrote:
>
>> Also, as an observation, it's not clear to me that the .webfont
>> proposal offers anything particularly compelling over embedding the
>> metadata directly into the OTF/TTF file, apart from the desktop
>> interop issue
>
> The desktop interop issue is a major one for many font makers. And
> it goes both ways: preventing casual piracy of 'downloadable fonts'
> and also preventing casual upload of desktop fonts not licensed for
> web use.
>
> By 'casual' I mean not requiring any conscious step between
> observing the license and breaking it.

I agree completely with your statement - it does appear to be a very
high priority requirement for font makers.

Conversely, there are certainly people that will point out that this
does not provide any value at all for legitimate users, only hurdles
that they have to jump over. I.e., why should browser vendors
implement features that make users' lives harder, when even the font
makers admit that this provides no real security or restrictions? Why
aren't we willing to trust users to do the right thing?

I'm not taking a side here, just pointing out both viewpoints. It is
not for me to say if the browser makers will be willing to compromise,
or if we will remain at an impasse.

-- Dirk
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 17:33:33 GMT

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