RE: New work on fonts at W3C

On Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:09 PM Dave Crossland wrote:
> <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>:
> > I believe we already discussed this and agreed that certain aspects
> > of EOT solution can be implemented in a different way, e.g.
> > utilizing same-origin restriction and CORS technology as Mozilla
> proposed.
> 
> Just to clarify: Same-origin restrictions are not the same as root
> strings; it is not a way to label the website which the font has been
> licensed for. However, EOT root strings are typiclally used to create
> same-origin restrictions. Is this correct?
> 

Yes, this is my understanding too. A single root string in EOT would effectively implement same-origin restriction. The possibility to have more than one root string allows the same font resource be used with web pages from different sites (which is what CORS can do as well), and empty root string would produce an EOT font resource with no restrictions on its use.

> > The important point is that we seem to agree we need a universally
> > supported web font wrapper that would allow to put "signs and fences"
> to
> > reduce a risk of font piracy to a level that would be acceptable for
> font
> > foundries
> 
> All web assets can be enhanced by a wrapper format to better convey
> metadata, and fonts are a great prototype asset.
> 
> I think its important to frame this issue in terms of benefiting
> users, not "reducing piracy."

I agree, it's important to show the benefits our efforts will bring, but for the sake of honest and productive discussion we need to consider the realities of the world we are all living in. Reducing the risks of doing business on the web is important for font foundries and at the same time it will benefit web designers and web users worldwide.

Regards,
Vladimir

Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 17:03:31 UTC