W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:06:13 -0700
To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249499174.7510.45.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 18:10 +0100, Jonathan Kew wrote:
> If everyone implements EOTL now, [...]

I think you can simplify that argument.

The proponents argue for EOTL with same-origin+CORS.
The rationales:

1) A required conversion step by authors
acts as a low garden wall.

2) A required conversion step by downloaders
acts a low garden wall.

3) EOTL will "just work" in IE<=8

4) same-orign+CORS helps to protect restricted license
fonts and is anyway an important security measure

None of those stands up to scrutiny.  Server
and service implementers will surely automate
the conversion step for authors.  UA and desktop
implementers will surely automate the conversion
step for downloaders.   EOTL will not "just work"
in IE<=8 for those browsers will not do same-origin+
CORS checking - EOTL will work incorrectly
in IE<=8.

Since conversions are reasonably expected to be
automated, EOTL has no real value as a format
distinct from TTF/OTF.

Since IE has to be patched for same-origin+CORS
anyway, TTF/OTF is not significantly harder to
deploy.

The only net effect of EOTL will be the proliferation
of a new format with no advantages over old formats.
That is in and of itself a bad idea regardless
of the projected impact on future, improved font 
formats.  It will fragment the tool market and
add software bloat as the fragmentation is healed,
without at any point giving even one new and useful
bit of functionality to authors or users.  It 
will fail to amount to a "low garden wall".

-t
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 19:07:08 GMT

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