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

RE: The unmentionable

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:16:18 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02112DDB@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
 From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:19 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: John Hudson; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The unmentionable
>
> Firefox does not "[use] same-origin [or] CORS as
> a lightweight form of license restriction."

So what ? If a font EULA wants to suggest using
same-origin/CORS to address hot-linking scenarios,
why does it need to be in a standard ? And why should
such licensing be the only motive to require its
implementation ?

Unless you're really saying Mozilla's motivation to use
same-origin/CORS was wrong ? If their implementation choice
is valid, why wouldn't it also be valid for non-raw fonts ?

Why wouldn't a web font standard require same-origin/CORS
for the exact reason Mozilla implemented it, regardless
of what anyone else thinks it means for the protection of
their IP ? Should we not do something for a valid reason A
because other people also want it for some unrelated reason B
that we can't standardize ? Why ?

And if font creators are happy with that requirement's side-effect
in terms of reducing the exposure of their product, and have
their license language recommend using the exact feature the
standard requires, what is the problem ? Who/what is hurt or broken ?
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 21:17:07 GMT

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