W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

RE: [css3-fonts] same-origin restriction definition

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:10:24 -0400
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D01F5DFC8E3@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
+1! 
I agree that clarification is useful and should remain in the CSS spec. A similar (or maybe even more detailed) language will likely be needed in the future WebFonts recommendation, and I also agree with general notion that various technology specifications (CSS, WebFonts, XMLHttpRequest, CORS) should be harmonized (by at least clarifying mutual dependencies).

I don't see how this can in any way be incompatible with W3C recommended architecture, but if it is - it's may be an indication that the real Web architecture has evolved and the W3C document may need to be updated to reflect the reality.

Vladimir


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Sylvain Galineau
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:35 AM
> To: John Daggett; www-style
> Subject: RE: [css3-fonts] same-origin restriction definition
> 
> I'd like this to remain there as well. And whichever WG the details
> belong to, it deserves interoperable specification eventually.
> 
> As for incompatibility with the W3C's recommended architecture, I'm
> quite puzzled as well, given the existence of specification that
> *require*
> same-origin restrictions (XMLHttpRequest) or explicitly support setting
> them
> up (CORS).
> 
> I do not understand how this specific section can be interpreted this
> way.
> Or how it forbids such restrictions in W3C specs.
> 
> But if the W3C's recommended architecture is indeed incompatible with
> what
> all implementations either already do (script) or will likely do
> (fonts) for reasons that include security (i.e. implementations won't
> change) then maybe the architecture needs an edit.
> 
> > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of John Daggett
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:19 AM
> > To: www-style
> > Subject: [css3-fonts] same-origin restriction definition
> >
> > Follow-up to Bert's original mail "[css3-fonts] various comments and
> > typos"
> >
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0553.html

> >
> > Bert Bos wrote:
> >
> > > k) Appendix A doesn't seem to belong in this spec. The "same-
> origin"
> > > restriction is also incompatible with W3C's Recommended Web
> > architecture
> > > (see, e.g., section 2.5 in "Architecture of the World Wide Web,
> > Volume
> > > One" at http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#uri-

> opacity)
> >
> > I'm not at all clear why same-origin restrictions are incompatible
> > with W3C's Recommended Web architecture.  Same-origin restrictions
> > exist for scripts, are you saying those are incompatible also?
> >
> > The reason for defining this here is that this spec defines the load
> > behavior of @font-face and a same-origin restriction affects that.
> > Whether that's required or not is probably an issue to be decided in
> > conjunction with the newly-formed Web Fonts group but having the
> > description of this in the same spec where @font-face is defined
> > certainly makes things easier for authors and implementers.
> >
> > John
> >

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 14:09:51 GMT

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