W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2009

RE: RE: New work on fonts at W3C

From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:48:29 +0000
To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <61027177C88032458A7862054B3C6258036818@TK5EX14MBXW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
d.crossland@gmail.com [Dave Crossland] wrote:


Thanks for the references.

>> but in general,
>> I’d say “DRM” is not something I’m a particular fan of  - proper expression
>> of licensing intent, and the unlocking of commercially-produced font
>> licenses for use with web content, IS.
>Are you saying that IE would implement a non-DRM web font format?

I don't speak for IE.  I should be clearer, though - I think full expression of "your digital rights" in a web font format is a good idea (in fact, I think it's a necessity, and that's where .ttf/.otf falls down).  I think attempts to lock files down to one vendor, or make the file format "uncrackable" (ha) are a bad idea.  "Obfuscation" is somewhat of a red herring - it's in EOT presumably because it made font vendors happy enough to allow the usage.  It's not anything like a real attempt at security, but it is a signpost.

I don't think the bulk of users - particularly users, not just content developers - will not be aware that TTF files might have additional rights to them, and they're not supposed to just copy the files from their internet cache to their Windows/Fonts directory.  (After all, all the other files in there say they're copyrighted too, right?)  I think TTF/OTF on the web is akin to saying you have to put the bits to Photoshop up on the web in order for anyone to view images created with it.


Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 03:49:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:27 UTC