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

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

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:12:25 -0800
To: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>
Cc: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <p0624081ac53e37dd6b8a@[]>

At 11:08  -0800 10/11/08, Brady Duga wrote:
>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?

ah, forgot that case.

>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?

Specs only tell you what you are required to do;  you can always do 
other things if you want to.
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 19:13:16 UTC

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