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

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

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:47:23 -0800
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6D096C8718FA4241B934489A5E1CE1420118D9B1F9F0@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

I have many questions relating to this and to previous discussion....

First, thanks to whoever a few days ago tried to set me straight on how access control works. I still have a bunch of questions about that. Let's call the site with the font the "local site" and other sites interested in using it "remote sites."

1) Who turns access control on? Is it essentially up to the browser vendors to decide a given class of resource should have access control on by default?

2) Can remote sites avoid the access control restrictions simply by adding a word or two to the HTML referencing the remote font?

3) Why is nobody worried about access control being a DMCA-covered issue? Not just for fonts, but for any resources that use it? Is it because the answer to my question #2 above is "yes"?

4) An unrelated question for Vlad: I thought MTX compression only applied to TTF? Can one use it on OpenType CFF as well, just without compressing the CFF table (because it's already compressed)? Or would it be some sort of extension to the MTX spec to apply it to CFF?

Also, I just wanted to concur with Vlad that I don't know of any type foundries (including Adobe) who are eager to restrict people's ability to use FLOSS fonts on the web. We just don't want our retail fonts to be handled the same way, is all.

Regards,

T
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 04:48:02 GMT

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