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: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:36:37 -0500
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF2767D04@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>
Cc: "Dave Crossland" <dave@lab6.com>, <www-style@w3.org>

On Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:59 AM Thomas Lord wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 00:24 -0500, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> 
> > So, you seem to suggest that in those cases when UA detects a 
> > fraudulent use
> 
> 
> Please pause there.  I think you mean "contended use".  
> 
> No browser is now or ever will be a part of the judiciary.
> Browsers can not, by the definitions of the relevant terms, 
> compute whether or not a use is fraudulent.
> 

Agree. "Contended use" it is.

> 
> > of fonts (i.e. a mismatch between website domain name and font root
> > string) we should punish unsuspecting end-users by 
> displaying a full 
> > text of font license.
> 
> 
> Under certain conditions the browser should give the user 
> prominent notice of the terms of the license and an 
> indication of why the current use triggered that notification.
> 

And what exactly should the notice say? How font EULA can possibly be of
any good use to a guy who did nothing wrong and just happen to click on
a link?

> 
> >  They wouldn't know what it is they see,
> 
> How did you arrive at that conclusion?  I think you think 
> poorly of users.
> 

It would be very confusing even to me!

> 
> 
> > why the
> > EULA text is displayed and what to do about it. What do you 
> expect an 
> > end-user reaction should be?
> 
> 
> 
> To read a notice from the font's owner and then to act for 
> themselves, accordingly.
> 

I am sorry, I don't understand what it means "to act for themselves,
accordingly". If it happened to me, my reaction would likely be:
"What the heck just happened? I clicked on the xyz.com link, and I've
got font EULA displayed!?"

> 
> 
> > 
> > > I think consensus around this issue is possible, if it is 
> presented 
> > > in a way that convinces foundries it will stop casual 
> unauthorised 
> > > use.
> > > 
> > 
> > I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's not the kind of comment that is necessary.
> I'm one of the people with Dave, trying to broker a deal here 
> and trying to express an approach that seems to make a lot of 
> sense.  We've been making a good faith effort to carefully 
> read what we can find from various EOT backers and understand 
> their requirements, constraints, goals, etc.
> I think you are being too quick in your dismissal and 
> put-down here, though I'm sorry I feel I have to bring that up.
> 

You're right, I apologize for the tone. What I wanted to say is that I
can't possibly see how the proposed approach could be presented to
foundries to convince them that displaying font EULA to unsuspecting end
user would solve the problem of unauthorized use of fonts.

> -t
> 
> 
> -t
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 07:36:36 GMT

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