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: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:54:20 +0100
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <D89E58DD-7F97-47F5-B02F-8369D15BFA8C@jfkew.plus.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
On 20 Jun 2011, at 21:41, Glenn Adams wrote:

> Ah, well that is a entirely different matter. It sounds like to me that you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong):
> 	• the current Web (resource access model) is outdated (or broken)
> 	• the Web model needs to be changed (to fix this)

I think this considerably overstates the position. The "current Web model" is not as simple and clear-cut as you appear to claim, as a number of existing Web APIs already use same-origin policies by default. As discussed in Robert's post <http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2011/02/distinguishing.html>, the existing situation has problems, but is constrained by backward compatibility requirements for existing APIs and resources. These constraints are not applicable to newly-defined APIs or resources.

> 	• the WebFonts WG is willing to mandate a backward incompatible change, starting with Web Fonts

Backward incompatible with what? As far as I am aware, most existing UAs that implement web fonts based on these (draft) specifications do so *with* a default same-origin restriction.

> If this is in fact the position of the WG, then it is important to make this more clear and more visible, and will require substantially more due diligence and buy-in to obtain wide-spread agreement.
> 
> Is such a fix or change to the Web model part of the WG's chartered scope?

The WG is not proposing a "change to the Web model", but that access to resources via @font-face be treated more akin to (for example) XHR requests than <img> loads. I don't think such a recommendation about web fonts is out of scope.

JK
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 20:55:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 June 2011 20:55:27 GMT