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

Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback -- iNDIFFERENT OBSERVATION

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:29:51 -0700
To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Cc:" Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249608591.6082.158.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 01:17 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote:

> I'm no longer representing a type foundry, but I can predict how most
> of them will react....
> 
> Having raw TTF/OTF as a required format is only of any interest if
> some more foundry-friendly format is also a required format.
> Otherwise, they are $c&!'ed.


Really?  Even with same-origin+CORS?

I'm a little bit alarmed because EOTL w/same-origin+CORS
doesn't seem to provide any protections at all that
won't be provided by TTF/OTF w/same-origin+CORS

EOTL w/s.o.+CORS is arguably even worse if IE<=8
doesn't get patched to add s.o.+CORS.

But if IE<=8 is going to be patched it could just
as well be patched to add TTF/OTF at the same time.

-t
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 01:30:30 GMT

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