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 11:39:34 -0800
To: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>
Cc: Brady Duga <duga@ljug.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <p0624081ec53e3e3be9a4@[10.0.1.6]>

At 11:23  -0800 10/11/08, Brady Duga wrote:
>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?
>
>--Brady

well, you wouldn't be assured of interop.  hm.  maybe the spec. 
shouldn't describe source behavior at all....bears thinking about.

this is still just a thought-experiment at this point, of course.
-- 
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 19:41:19 GMT

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