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

RE: The unmentionable

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:46:15 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1248893175.5922.37.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 02:36 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> I echo John's sentiment. 

To the extent he denies the existence of a 
review period for proposed Recommendations
and the authority of the Director in consultation
with the AB and TAG - he's simply mistaken.

> One additional comment: same-origin policy with
> CORS override has already shipped for webfonts with Firefox 3.5.
> As of yet I see no reason to argue with the decision or the implementation
> choice. Neither do the font vendors I have talked to as it gives them
> by default what used to require extra steps with EOT rootstrings, all done
> in a standards way. I am positive we have enough work to do here without
> looking for extra 'hair-splitting', let alone 'court proceedings' !

The Recommendation process is designed to split
hairs in a legalistic way.   Any draft Recommendation
a Font WG puts forward is, next step, put before a 
juridical authority (alongside any unresolved Objections).

Preparing for that step *is* the work we have before us.
Very literally.

> So while there is most definitely value in ensuring we all understand what
> level of 'protection' this or that proposal entails, I am happy to let
> others debate the philosophical suitability of CORS after the ship has
> actually sailed.

What I said was simply that the Rationale for 
CORS for linked fonts in a Recommendation must 
almost certainly NOT mention "IP protection".

I also said that if no other Rationale were offered,
there would be objections to CORS (that would 
likely prevail, in my opinion).

Finally, I offered two such Rationale and commented
on their relative strengths.

I see no reason for you to denigrate that contribution
as a mere "debate [about] the philosophical suitability
of CORS".

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 18:47:02 UTC

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