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: Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:06:55 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikxECfQ-drk2ESQTjtpxZzZ16UaYDfYBcQZKq6xAwmAVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, 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>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> A simple use case:
>
> 1. a font server in the cloud wishes to provide fonts for reference by
> arbitrary authors without restrictions on access;
> 2. a web page author creates a page that references that font and places the
> page on a server in a different domain;
> 3. the web page author expects that a UA will download the font and use it;
> 4. the web page author does not expect to have to configure its server to
> include the entity headers to relax same-origin restrictions;

In this scenario, the author doesn't have to do anything.  The font
server has to send the right header, and it's trivial to do so.  The
author's page will then "just work".

The only time an author has to worry about something like this is if
the author is, themself, hosting both the font and the page, and doing
so on separate servers.  If this is the case, they almost certainly
have access to at least basic server configuration tools, and can send
the correct header (it's a one-line static header for this scenario).

> I'm sorry, but Samsung cannot agree with this approach, and will retain the formal objection unless the polarity is inverted.

As previously noted, the WG has already resolved on this matter, and
multiple browsers implement SOR for @font-face resources.  Your formal
objection is noted, but I doubt the WG will change its resolution.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 22:07:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 June 2011 22:07:22 GMT