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

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:05:08 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600811130105o663dc01dn73d0c335b614ecb6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
Cc: "Dave Crossland" <dave@lab6.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

> I can't see how gzip or any other standard utility compression could be
> considered an obfuscation - when people buy fonts on our website they
> download them in a zip file.
>
> As far as any "to be developed in the future" obfuscation is concerned -
> it will be publicly disclosed and completely unprotected. Can it be good
> enough? MTX achieves high levels of compression by partially (or
> completely) eliminating certain data from an original font and
> recreating them on the fly at the decompression stage. I consider this
> technique to be rather strong obfuscation - would you agree?
>

The details of the obfuscation are irrelevant in practice. Tools will do all
the work. It's no harder to run "mtx-unwrap" than "xyz-unwrap" (or "gunzip",
for that matter).

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 09:05:44 GMT

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