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 11:23:08 -0800
Cc: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <BA31C13D-71E8-40D7-8710-B19FE4545FFE@ljug.com>
To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>

On Nov 10, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Dave Singer wrote:
>> 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.

Sorry - "illegal" was a poor choice of words. I mean, say I have some  
other spec that uses CSS 3 to style XML documents. However, in that  
spec I require all fonts to be raw OTF encrypted using "Brady-13"  
hyper-strong encryption. Would those documents no longer be valid CSS  
3 documents, since they are not using the CSS approved encryption/ 
obfuscation mechanism?

Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 19:23:46 UTC

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