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

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:22:40 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0811070822v16c22fb6p5dd397115f552aad@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Thomas Phinney wrote:
> > > > I believe this isn't DRM, but DRE (and even more so in the new
> > > > "compromise proposal"). But of course calling it DRM makes it easier
> for
> > > > W3C folks to have a knee-jerk reaction against it.
> > >
> > > DRE is evil. Easily-circumvented DRE is pointless and evil.
> >
> > Wait a moment now, I don't think one can reasonably consider DRE evil.
> > At least, not anymore evil than copyright itself.
>
> Your definition of DRE is obviously different to Thomas' definition. I was
> referring to the idea of obfuscating font files, regardless of what
> acronym you give it.


Well, I'm just trying to avoid some double-speak.  I used the definition
given by Creative Commons, which is the first link coming up in google for
"dre digital rights" (I had to search for it because I'd never seen that
particular acronym before).

It does seem clear that obfuscating a font file is far more than merely
expressing the user's distribution rights.  If an acronym like DRE is going
to have any use at all it has to refer to actually expressing rights, rather
than enforcing them.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 16:23:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT