Re: Next step?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> I don't see any reason to stand against CWT, honestly.


There is one, the point about deployability that I keep bringing up. I guess
I'll bring it up again:

1) An EOT-Classic font with a rootstring is not a conforming CWT font, per
the latest CWT draft. (Personally I and Sylvain think the draft could be
changed to allow this, but other people, including Chris Lilley apparently,
don't want to do this.)
2) Most font licenses will require authors to apply some kind of same-origin
restriction
3) Given (1), the only way for authors to implement that restriction for IE
users will be to implement Referer checking

That means deploying CWT will in most cases actually be harder than simply
publishing a WOFF (or TTF) and EOT-Classic version of the same font. (And
less reliable, due to Referer headers being stripped by firewalls.) This
makes CWT pointless. Maybe I wouldn't *object* to it having an official
spec, but I don't see why one would support it.

Sylvain characterizes this point as "a year ago EOT was unacceptable because
of rootstrings and now we're being told it's useless without them." In a
sense, I agree; this is a dilemma that cripples CWT.

(Note that even if (1) was changed so that fonts with rootstrings can be
valid CWT, publishing fonts in multiple formats would still be just about as
(in)convenient as publishing one CWT font with a rootstring; in your
workflow, just replace the tool that sets the rootstring with a slightly
more capable tool that spits out WOFF (or whatever) as well. So even if CWT
changes to make issue (1) moot, I would still see very little value in it.)

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]