W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2008

Re: WebFonts ready for use

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:27:13 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20805010227t729232f0xd6d1ae7833751af@mail.gmail.com>
To: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

2008/5/1 David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>> I think it is a mistake to use the term "embedding" in connection with
>> web-fonts, because it is misleading about how HTTP works; "linking" is
>> a much more accurate term.
> Embedding is the concept that font vendors use in their licencing.  I would
> suggest it is reasonably safe to assume that any vendor that licenced for
> embedding wouldn't consider deep linking from another site to be acceptable.

Right; therefore using "embedding" in the context of web-fonts is misleading.

> What the domain whitelisting in EOT is trying to do is to produce semantics
> closer to embedding, when the medium actually physically uses linking.

This seems to me a reason for rejecting EOT.

> (Interestingly of course images in HTML are logically links, but designers
> rely on their behaving, visually, as though they were embedded,

In what sense do web publishers rely on their behaving as though they
were embedded? The results of a search like
http://www.google.com/search?q=image+hosting is evidence that many
publishers rely on cross-site image linking.

> even if that creates copyright loopholes.)

Technology isn't law.

I think in general there are always harmful unintended side effects
when technologists try to act as law enforcement.

Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 09:27:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:36 UTC