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: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:43:52 +1200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=PRAEgAMa3yvCSHgd9bgCbbc7-cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, "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>
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> 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.


That is not how the Web currently works. In practice, the major browser
vendors generally work in good faith to comply to the standards they don't
actively object to, even though we don't have a "certification process".

We also all have a strong desire to converge to interoperable behavior. It's
important that we converge on common rules for cross-origin font loads in
the long term, and that behavior should be specified somewhere. Where it's
specified won't matter much in practice. But we should not harm
interoperability by taking the easy out and making behavior "optional" or
"undefined".

Rob
-- 
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 14:44:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 June 2011 14:44:33 GMT