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 21:53:29 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02112E9B@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:43 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The unmentionable
>
> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 21:30 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>
> > One last time: if Mozilla's motive to do same-origin/CORS
> > is valid, why wouldn't it be valid for non-raw fonts ?
>
> What is amusing to me is that you are
> asking me that question after I gave
> two reasons why it would be arguably valid.

Precisely. You already know there are perfectly valid
reasons to do it that way. So why should we worry about
having to require this feature for the purpose of 'IP protection' ?
Why worry about future formal objections to a requirement
a working draft wouldn't even need to state in order to justify
the feature in the first place ?
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 21:54:11 GMT

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