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 23:23:24 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02113331@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]


>There are two reasons.
>
>One is that language about "IP protection" will have
>a very rough time if it appears in a draft Recommendation.
>The other is that the proponents of the feature should
>be fully informed and realize that the requirement,
>should it appear in a Recommendation, will not be
>for "IP protection".
>
>We are here working towards a Recommendation, no?

If we already have good solid reasons to require the feature, and those
reasons have nothing to do with IP protection, there is no need to spend time
worrying about the consequences of promoting the requirement for IP
protection in the spec for this exact same feature.

More on other expectations below.

>
>So that people who are considering advocating for
>the requirement are not misled in their expectations
>and so that we can begin to advance the dialog by
>more explicitly considering what a draft Recommendation
>will actually say.

Did someone request that the actual standard require same-origin/CORS
for the specific purpose of license enforcement ? All I've seen is
Bill Davis from Ascender stating that such solutions do offer general
benefits to them. (As well as for font users like John Hudson's clients
who would be happier if some kid couldn't just link to their custom font from
his MySpace page). So while I gather the use-case is significant to them,
I haven't noted any expectation that this exact solution be mandated in
a standard. Again, I may have missed it.

But as there may already be good reasons to mandate the feature that do
not involve IP protection, even better if font vendors see such benefits
in this same solution without us even having to go there !

Unless you'd worried there are font vendors who would only license their
fonts for web use if same-origin/CORS were required for IP protection vs.
implemented for unrelated reasons ? That seems far-fetched.







>
>-t
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 23:24:08 GMT

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