- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:10:02 -0700
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Cc: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, Paul Nelson <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: > 2008/4/30 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>: >> >> it would make it difficult for authors to serve a font only >> licensed for >> embedding in documents they produce, since the UA may use it for >> other >> documents without any deliberate action on the part of either the >> site or >> the user. > > 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. I think this is not entirely clear-cut. Yes, technically, the only way to truly "embed" a font would be to include an inline <style> block in the HTML document with a data: URL referencing the font. On the other hand, there seems to be some precedent for considering it "embedding" to link to an on-site EOT font. Similarly, the <embed> element in HTML embeds a resource that is loaded by dereferencing an external URL. In general, "embed" is a poor choice of terminology in the context of the Web, but unfortunately it seems to be standard in the area of font licensing. It would be better if font licenses were more specific about what is and is not allowed. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 00:10:45 UTC