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

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

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:14:00 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767B3E@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Brady Duga" <duga@ljug.com>, "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

Like I mentioned in my reply to David, I believe that UA should just use
whatever font is served - no questions asked. 

Vlad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brady Duga
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 2:09 PM
> To: Dave Singer
> Cc: Brady Duga; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> --Brady
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 23:15:48 GMT

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