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: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:29:34 +0100
Message-ID: <18715.26334.961826.545742@opera.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Also sprach Brad Kemper:

 > Well, I guess that settles that then. Major foundries will only be  
 > satisfied with solutions that have the UA enforcing their license  
 > terms for them, something that implementors are not eagar to do. That  
 > about sum it up?

I hope not. In the past, major vendors have stated "we only need a
simple mechanims so that web fonts cannot be be dragged/dropped
to/from the web inadvertently". A simple compression/obfuscation
scheme could achieve this. I'm still hopeful that Vlad's proposal, or
some variation of it, can gain the support of font vendors.

 > The big foundries might change their tune when they see smaller  
 > independant foundries eating the pie that was left on the table. So  
 > for those independant with a more open mind, I wonder if the current  
 > type formats allow for some sort of watermark or per-font-purchaser  
 > digital signing that would assist said smaller foundries in doing  
 > their own policing? Or would that require a new format?

Current font formats can hold a copyright statement that, potentially,
could encode legal prose. I wouldn't want browsers to try parsing that
prose, but any text -- up to 64k, I've been told -- can be stored in
this field.

So, I think the current TTF/OT approach fulfills your requirement. 

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 23:30:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:17 GMT