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

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

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:28:55 +0100
Message-ID: <18712.42903.183310.872913@opera.com>
To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Also sprach Dave Singer:

 > 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.  The UA must also implement the access 
 > control restrictions, and respect them if they are used (for 
 > anything, not just fonts).  The UA MUST take care that the font is 
 > not generally accessible to other applications while it's being used 
 > for the web site it's embedded for.

It's unclear what "embedded" means in this text. W3C has previously
used this definition:

  /Embedded/ in this case means that the font is logically or physically
  tied to the document.

  http://www.w3.org/Fonts/Misc/charter-2008

Since the most recent proposals don't tie fonts to specific documents,
I propose to avoid the /embedded/ word. Here's a rewritten text:

  If a user-agent is requested to use a linked font that is not
  labelled as freely usable, and that font is not 'obfuscated', the UA
  MUST refuse to use the font. The UA must also implement the access
  control restrictions, and respect them if they are used (for
  anything, not just fonts). The UA MUST take care that the font is not
  generally accessible to other applications while it's being used to
  display web pages and style sheets it is linked from.

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 21:29:40 GMT

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