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 21:30:44 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02112E29@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The unmentionable
>
> 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.

I never stated they implemented it to enforce licenses.

>
>
> >  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.

If people ask again, it may be that you did not succeed.

One last time: if Mozilla's motive to do same-origin/CORS
is valid, why wouldn't it be valid for non-raw fonts ?

If you're saying Mozilla should not have done it that way,
and therefore a new web font standard shouldn't either, that's fine.

Let's hear why they're wrong.
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 21:31:26 GMT

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