W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

RE: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:52:28 +0000
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829037707@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I agree with Vlad. Where something should be specified is an administrative issue. It may not be an easy one to solve for a number of reasons but what matters is that it *is* specified so that authors no longer have to deal with fonts loading in some browsers but not others. Defining a standard is a means to achieve interoperability; optional requirements i.e. remaining ‘compliant’ whether you do or don’t something legalizes some level incompatibility. It’s not always bad (CSS allows many optional behaviors e.g. see outline:invert) but when we’re talking about web fonts and the ability to load them for a very common scenario it seems too fundamental to the feature for runtime compatibility to be optional. That such incompatibilities are officially deemed ‘compliant’ will not decrease in any way the real-world pain this incompatibility already causes. The standard, wherever it may be defined, should improve on and resolve the incompatible status quo. If it cannot or will not then I wonder what we even need to specify and why in the first place.
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 6:45 AM
To: Glenn Adams; Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: John Hudson; W3C Style; 3668 FONT; www-font@w3.org
Subject: RE: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

If I may, I’d like to draw a parallel and say that a mechanism by which access restrictions are controlled is a sort of API that is intended to be used by authors. As such, an API is only usable if it’s supported by all implementations. If API is optional and can be supported or not supported at will, then using this API by authors isn’t really an option, IMO.

Vladimir


From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org<mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org]<mailto:[mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org]> On Behalf Of Glenn Adams
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:46 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: John Hudson; W3C Style; 3668 FONT; www-font@w3.org<mailto:www-font@w3.org>
Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin
<snip>
Second, I am not saying "they shouldn't be specified". I'm saying they (same-origin mandate) should not be specified in WOFF or CSS3-FONTS. These are not the correct place to mandate or enforce such restrictions. If there are restrictions on access, the mechanism by which this is imposed and enforce should be specified where the access occurs, and that is not in WOFF or CSS3-FONTS, but in a UA that uses these. Further, it must be possible to build UAs that are not required to enforce such restrictions, and which remain compliant.

G.

Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 16:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT