W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:13:38 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTimPRShm2pbyxdad7B5cSkYE28PJew@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Hi Vladimir,

Nice to hear from you as it's been some years since we spoke.

Regarding your parallel, I think you would agree that Web content authors
use optional APIs all the time, and do so effectively, e.g., see
http://www.quirksmode.org/js/support.html.

I'm reminded of a different analogy, namely the pirating of videos in Asia.
A few years back, I heard (an unconfirmed rumor) that execs at certain movie
houses decided that if they couldn't beat them, then they might join them,
so they started doing early releases of watermarked, extremely low price
copies funneled into these pirate markets, which not only allowed them to
track pirate copying better, but also generated income. Now, I don't know if
this anecdote is true or not, but the point is that if some share of the
market supports a feature, then it is up to the authors to decide whether it
is worth their time and effort to use that feature, and for those segments
that do not support it, there are always other options.

I'm also reminded of various efforts to have UAs enforce HTML validity on
authors, which, as you know, has been universally rejected (ignored), and,
now we have HTML5 codifying how to interoperably process invalid and/or
non-well-formed HTML.

Eeven if the W3C writes a mandate for same origin or equivalent into UA
requirements, the W3C (and nobody else ASFAIK) certifies UAs as being
compliant or not. Without a certification process, such mandatory
requirements are almost worthless.

Best Regards,
Glenn

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

> If I may, I’d like to draw a parallel and say that a mechanism by which
> access restrictions are controlled is a sort of API that is intended to be
> used by authors. As such, an API is only usable if it’s supported by all
> implementations. If API is optional and can be supported or not supported at
> will, then using this API by authors isn’t really an option, IMO.****
>
> ** **
>
> Vladimir****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Glenn Adams
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:46 PM
> *To:* Tab Atkins Jr.
> *Cc:* John Hudson; W3C Style; 3668 FONT; www-font@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to
> origin****
>
> <snip>****
>
> Second, I am not saying "they shouldn't be specified". I'm saying they
> (same-origin mandate) should not be specified in WOFF or CSS3-FONTS. These
> are not the correct place to mandate or enforce such restrictions. If there
> are restrictions on access, the mechanism by which this is imposed and
> enforce should be specified where the access occurs, and that is not in WOFF
> or CSS3-FONTS, but in a UA that uses these. Further, it must be possible to
> build UAs that are not required to enforce such restrictions, and which
> remain compliant.****
>
> ** **
>
> G.****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 14:14:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 June 2011 14:14:29 GMT