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: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:22:30 -0400
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0BE3D0E5B4@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
Glenn,

It appears that you have completely misread my intentions. I very much value your comments on the specification produced by the WebFonts WG, which reflects the consensus of the group that both same-origin restriction for webfonts and the provision for a mechanism to relax it is a good thing for web authors. Many implementers have agreed, and the recent success and proliferation of the use of web fonts seems to be a testament of the WG success. We do see the room for improvement and agree that WOFF specification isn’t the best place for these features to be specified, as noted by “feature at risk” notes placed in the spec.

You seem to have a strong opinion against implementing the same origin restriction for webfonts, despite numerous arguments that were presented on this list by many people representing different categories of WG constituents – authors, font vendors and implementers. Like Martin Dürst noted earlier on this thread, I think you made it very clear as to *what* you want, but I am struggling to understand *why* you want this. I appreciate your willingness to agree to making an authorial opt-in mechanism a mandatory feature, but I am trying to understand the specific reasons why you maintain your strong objection against making same origin restriction a default for webfonts, something that by many other people is deemed to be a benefit because it solves real problems [1] that exist on the web today. What is the problem that you’re trying to solve by maintaining the formal objection against same origin restriction? I believe this discussion would be much more productive if we could review a use case where this creates problems for users or web authors.

Thank you,
Vladimir

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#solve-real-problems



From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:31 PM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
Cc: John Hudson; Florian Rivoal; Martin J. Dürst; Jonathan Kew; Tab Atkins Jr.; W3C Style; 3668 FONT; www-font@w3.org
Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

Vlad,

You appear to persist in mis-reading or mis-stating what I am saying. I just previously said:

"I believe Samsung could agree to making an authorial opt-in mechanism a mandatory feature on UAs that access WOFF"

That translates to respecting the consideration of authors. However, if authors do not explicitly declare a restriction, then we believe that is tantamount to declaring that access is unrestricted. That is the current Web model, not the converse.

So please stop implying that Samsung is pursuing this point of view from a position of theoretical purity or lack of consideration.

Samsung is pursuing this point of view because we believe that a restrictive default in the absence of a declaration of authorial intention is incompatible with current Web practice, and that it represents a backward incompatible change to such practice.

Samsung will continue to object to a position to the contrary, so please record our formal objection to such a position in your documentation.

G.

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com<mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>> wrote:
… or doesn’t work, as the case may be. Considering the existing and agreed-upon HTML design principle “consider users over authors over implementers over specifiers over theoretical purity” [1] – can you offer a particular use case that would justify your position?

Thank you,
Vlad

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies



From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 3:18 PM
To: John Hudson
Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Florian Rivoal; Martin J. Dürst; Jonathan Kew; Tab Atkins Jr.; W3C Style; 3668 FONT; www-font@w3.org<mailto:www-font@w3.org>

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

All. Because that is the way the Web works today.

G.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:06 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com<mailto:tiro@tiro.com>> wrote:
Glenn wrote:
I believe we could agree to the first, but not to the second. In fact, we want to make the second to read as:

      UAs MUST NOT, by default, treat webfont resources as
      same origin restricted.

In the absence of an author declaring either a restriction or a relaxation, we believe the default should be NO restriction.

For all resources, or for webfonts in particular?

May I echo Tab's question, and ask why? I'd like to get a clearer idea of whether Samsung's position is essentially a matter of principle or has some particular practical import for UAs.

JH


Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 21:22:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 June 2011 21:22:59 GMT