RE: Next step?

From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan

>However you've convinced me that a WOFF recommendation, if there is one, should also recommend implementation of the same->origin check + CORS. Thanks! Whether and how authors use that to satisfy their font license obligations is still between >them and their font vendors, but a standard mechanism should be available in all browsers.

Indeed. Happy to settle that.

>When Bill Davis says Ascender's EULAs will continue to require a same-origin check, surely I can trust that statement?
He said a referer check would comply with a requirement to 'reasonably restrict access'. So until I have the EULA and professional lawyers tell me what it means and how it shall be enforced in technical terms I shall trust Bill's statement as is. And, based on my experience, trust that it may not mean what non-lawyers like you and me think it means :)

>As you know, I think that change would make CWT more useful. However we both know other people have a problem with it... >Overall I'd still be tepid about CWT; adding rootstrings will generally require tools to be introduced into the Web author >workflow, and once you have that, it would be just as easy to generate both WOFF and EOT-Classic files, and CWT is not >needed. IMHO.

If the goal is to get others to support it then EOT-Classic seems a non-starter as an interoperable implementation must respect rootstrings and support MTX compression. I'm cautiously optimistic that a subset that effectively requires clients to ignore rootstrings and has no proprietary compression would be a lot more palatable.

>The only scenario where I can imagine CWT being a real win is if font vendors drop their demands for same-origin >restrictions. 
Or interpret 'reasonable restriction' as : no overriding default SOP for clients that support it. Legacy clients won't be around forever (although at times, it does feel that way...)

>Then you could conveniently produce CWT fonts that are easy to deploy, and you can serve a single font file served to IE >users and other browser users without violating your font license. I genuinely would like to see that scenario happen and I >would support implementing CWT if we thought it would come about. Based on what Bill Davis and others have said, I just see >no hope it will.

Very valuable feedback. This ball is now in my camp. Thanks !

Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 14:24:46 UTC