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

Re: New work on fonts at W3C

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:22:29 -0700
Message-Id: <25A92E99-4A95-45D4-AFD5-0D659ACE8FCD@gmail.com>
To: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23/06/2009, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sure, and if I don't mind my content (pictures, movies, or fonts I  
>> create,
>> for instance) being viewable in Google's cached view, then I would  
>> indicate
>> this in a CORS header (if CORS could work that way). There are many  
>> who
>> would not want their IP shown in cached view, or who would not want  
>> outdated
>> information (such as loan rates or legal disclosure) shown in  
>> cached view.
>> If they are my resources, then I should be able to indicate whether  
>> or not
>> Google should have the right to republish them. In fact, many
>> dynamically-displayed resources are currently blocked from displaying
>> anywhere in which the referrer is not the same site or on a list of  
>> approved
>> sites. A simpler, standardized approach to managing this would  
>> benefit many.
>
> This is bizarre. Why is this "republishing"? If your ISP goes down and
> I need the info now, I want a cached view. If I get junk from the
> cached view, your site just gave me a bad first impression; it does
> not damage Google, only your own site.

Well, I'd certainly want to take that into consideration before I  
restricted google then, wouldn't I? That would be my business  
decision, or at least it should be. You might get junk anyway, if I  
haven't set up my JavaScript to work with Google's duplicate copy or  
if I really need server set/read cookies to make it work well. And you  
won't see the right font in Firefox 3.1 unless I explicity allow it.

> And how about Google Translate? Babelfish?

Same thing. Either I indicate that I want to allow or disallow. If  
restricting is more important to my company, then that may override  
the desire to have those other sites work well. Or maybe it's not, and  
I will be more liberal in who I grant access.

As I said before, there are already some ways to restrict some access,  
such as by requiring a sign on. Why don't you want me to have this  
minor amount of control over my own assets beyond that, in a more  
standard and less severe way?

>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 18:23:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT