- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:46:58 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:42 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] > > > >On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:13 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > >> I did too. But if a license does require same-origin checks then it > >was assumed > >> a customer might want to use the rootstring to do that for the IE > >installed base. > > > >Absolute clarity on that matter would be helpful. > >I regard "same-origin" (more likely: "CORS") checks > >as a term of art in which rootstrings in font files > >play no role. If people are using the term more loosely > >then that will cause problems down the road. > > > > That's not the question here. The issue is that the IE installed > base we're trying to be compatible with will not apply any origin > restrictions beyond those embedded in the file. So if the EULA does > require origin restrictions, things get harder. Given that the only > feature on hand for the IE installed base is one we all deemed too > complicated for many real-world scenarios. I see. I think some conservative creativity in the EULA can evade the issue but I'm not privy to your chats with the relevant folks on the matter and don't wish to say more in *this* forum. Well, I will say that it touches on the value we assign to the backwards compat. of EOT-lite so that, in my book, if you push too hard in that direction, you are from the perspective of others arguing to take EOT-lite off the table. -t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:47:37 UTC