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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:01:48 -0500
Message-ID: <491A471C.6070905@mit.edu>
To: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Dave Singer wrote:
> At 13:18  +1300 12/11/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> I'm trying to be reasonable. I was just pointing out that the 
>> statement "The Web developer's choice of fonts should not in any way 
>> be affected  by the technology we are developing - he should be free 
>> to choose any font (free, commercial, proprietary, etc.) that 
>> satisfies his needs." is untenable.
...
> I think we may be at cross-purposes here.  Designing a setup in which 
> freely-usable fonts can be delivered 'unimpaired, unrestricted' and 
> restricted fonts can be delivered with some 
> indication/encouragement-to-observe their restrictions, is not, prima 
> facie, untenable to me.

Dave, I think you misunderstood Robert's comment.  All he's saying that 
there are some technologies that we (Mozilla) are not willing to 
implement.  For example, a DRM scheme for fonts that restricts the 
user's access to his own computer.  If a font vendor requires such a DRM 
scheme to license a font, then web developers won't be able to choose 
that font, and hence the choice is in fact restricted by the technology 
we develop here.

Now no one is actually proposing such a draconian DRM scheme, so the 
whole point is somewhat moot.  But as a statement of principle, "the 
technology we pick MUST (in the RFC sense) allow web developers to use 
any font they might want" isn't workable.  "Allow web developers to use 
as many fonts as possible", sure.

> Now, if you are saying that some set of font vendors will always be able 
> to say "that's not good enough for me, you cannot use this font on the 
> web" I agree.

I think that's closer to what Robert meant.

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 03:02:41 GMT

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