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 14:22:56 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1248902576.5922.108.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 21:16 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> 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 ?

Only that you said otherwise.


>  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 ?

I answered those questions to you already.

-t



> 
> 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 21:23:36 GMT

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