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

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:08:31 -0800
Cc: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <53320A70-F6A2-4CFA-9AF1-72E785F74DCA@ljug.com>
To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>

On Nov 10, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Dave Singer wrote:
> If a user-agent is requested to use an embedded font that is not  
> labelled as freely usable, and that font is not 'obfuscated', the UA  
> MUST refuse to use the font.

Does this imply that a local font could not be used for a local CSS  
document if it is not marked as allowed for embedding? Or is this  
somehow tied to the transport mechanism? So, only files served using a  
scheme that requires network access would require this? What about  
other forms of encryption/obfuscation? Would those be illegal?

Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 19:09:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:41 UTC