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:
>http://www.doubletwist.com

>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5133754.stm


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.

-Chris

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT