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

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

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:30:59 -0400
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, StyleBeyondthePunchedCard <www-style@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, Martin J. <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0BE3D0EF9A@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
Glenn,

Thank you for further clarifying your position and for your willingness to work towards finding a mutually acceptable solution. I understand your concerns regarding UA implementation in CE devices that may not have the same update / release cycle as PC-based products, and where new features take time to implement.

I am wondering what is the current status of @font-face support by this class of UAs. Do you know if @font-face is fully supported by a majority of CE-based clients, or do most still support only a subset of @font-face command? Until recently it was highly unusual for many CE user agents to support downloadable font (via @font-face-src) due to various constraints, and those that did support downloadable fonts in general would do so using various delivery mechanisms (such as e.g. DSM-CC object carousel in broadcast TV environments). Once delivered, a font could then be used the same way as resident fonts, so it would essentially be considered a local resource that is not subject to any origin restrictions.

If most of CE-based UAs do not currently support @font-face-src attribute, then maybe an easier way to find an agreeable compromise would be to make it clear that same-origin restriction is only applicable to downloadable fonts loaded via HTTP using @font-face rule. Those clients that do not support this loading behavior (or when a downloadable font is loaded using other mechanisms) need not be concerned with same origin restrictions. Would this be an acceptable way to find a compromise solution that would eliminate the grounds for your objection?

Thank you,
Vladimir


From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 4:22 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: liam@w3.org; Levantovsky, Vladimir; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org; Martin J.
Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

One must recognize that (1) UAs deployed in CE devices are not the same category as PCs, which can be updated more easily; (2) css3-fonts has been under development for an inordinately long time and the need for @font-face implementations has existed since the beginning; (3) UAs *are* deployed that use @font-face and that do not support HTML5 or same-origin.

These are facts that should be considered, and as a representative of a company that has deployed such UAs, Samsung will continue to object to a retroactive requirement on these UAs to support same origin. We do not, however, have the same position for HTML5 category UAs that are now appearing in the field.

Of course, a WG is entitled to change a non-final spec in a non-backward compatible manner, but in doing so should take into account the impact of such a change. Finally, I did not suggest such a generalization as you state below.

I am attempting to find compromise language that Samsung can live with. Are you interested in finding a compromise that can remove our objection or not?

G.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com<mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com>> wrote:
As a *draft* specifications, css3-fonts and WOFF can certainly define new requirements for future implementations. Your entire argument would imply that once a draft has been implemented future versions of the spec must be compatible with those implementations. This is not the way CSS works; no implementation that implemented a given draft is guaranteed conformance with the next one. The main motive for vendor prefixes is to allow specifications to evolve without breaking implementations. That historical implementations did not prefix their @font-face implementation should not block us from achieving both interoperability and desirable runtime behavior in future implementations.


From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org<mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org<mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Glenn Adams
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:59 PM
To: liam@w3.org<mailto:liam@w3.org>
Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>; www-font@w3.org<mailto:www-font@w3.org>; Martin J.

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

Samsung supports your suggestion below if it is expressed either as "should" or made conditionally mandatory, where the condition is expressed as follows or an equivalent:

"If the use of WOFF occurs in a context where same origin access constraints are *already* present/supported, then that mechanism *must* be used to limit access to WOFF fonts; otherwise, such a mechanism *should* be provided for such use."

We do not want the use of WOFF by itself, or css3-fonts, by itself, to trigger a mandatory requirement for same origin processing in contexts that don't already support such constraints. For example, in HTML4 or XHTML1 category UAs that already support @font-face or that wish to support WOFF.

We note that the @font-face rule has been defined in css3-fonts since 31 July 2001, and that a variety of UAs have been fielded in the non-desktop environment (e.g., mobile, television, etc), which employ @font-face for accessing other non-WOFF fonts, and do so without same origin restrictions. This would argue against introducing a non-backward compatible change in css3-fonts to mandate same origin processing for prior fielded implementations that do not otherwise support same origin. WOFF similarly should not by itself trigger mandatory support for same origin in such UAs.

G.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org<mailto:liam@w3.org>> wrote:
The WOFF spec could say in its conformance section (right in the spec,
not in a separate document) that for use in style sheets (not only CSS)
an implementation-defined mechanism should (must?) be available to limit
access to the WOFF resource outside of support for the style sheets, and
maybe give same-origin as an example.


Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 21:31:30 GMT

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