W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: fsType and embedding information

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:48:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4BF44EA7.8020909@tiro.com>
To: rfink@readableweb.com
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
Richard Fink wrote:

> Embedding bits that exist where?

fsType field, OS/2 table.

>> constitute or imply permission to create or serve a WOFF file
> Does that mean they might imply *impermission* to create or serve a WOFF
> file?

No.

> There seems to be a common consensus that the embedding bits have nothing to
> with creating a WOFF file and yet once again, here we have a connection
> being made between embedding bits and creating a WOFF file.

No, I'm trying to clarify that there is *not* a connection between 
embedding bits and creating a WOFF file.

Is the follow better? In terms of addressing both your confusion and 
Vlad's request for precise language:

	A font's fsType embedding bits 1-3, 8 and 9,
	as defined in OS/2 table version 4 or earlier,
	do not constitute or imply permission to
	create or serve a WOFF file, nor do they prohibit
	such action. Web authors should confirm that a
	font is licensed for such use.

> I also fail to see how EOT makes any sort of explanation "necessary". How
> exactly is it that one thing leads to the other? EOT is EOT. WOFF is WOFF.
> TTF is TTF.

It's a matter of perception. Another way of looking at it, from a users 
point of view, is that 'webfont is webfont'. For more than a decade, 
there's been one webfont format in limited but significant use -- EOT -- 
and the perception created by the format is that embedding bits are 
associated with web font linking. This is why I consider it important 
than *any* new webfont format clarify that this is not the case, so as 
to avoid presumption from precedence.

JH
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 20:49:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:06 GMT