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: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:22:07 +0000
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290BD5AA@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>


[Bjoern Hoehrmann:]
> * Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >Our definitions of coherence differ hugely. First it was backward
> >compatibility and the conformance of existing devices with a new draft,
> >in complete conflict with WG process and the explicit disclaimers present
> in every single CSS spec.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0476.html is the
> original comment. It states the problem quite clearly and offers a so-
> lution that's also quite clear. There is nothing about backward compa-
> tibility in there, so you don't seem to have followed the thread very
> well.
> 
> >(This is the Fonts WG mailing list btw [...])
> 
> The thread started on www-style and that is where I sent my message to, as
> I was discussing "css3-fonts" only. Again, this is not a complicated
> issue, just imagine a non-browser implementation of css3-fonts that has no
> inherent reason to emulate this browser behavior. Why should it be non-
> compliant if it does not restrict linking to fonts, or does restrict
> linking but does not support using "CORS" to lift such restrictions? If
> you can tell Glenn Adams and the rest of us on www-style, that would be
> far more helpful than telling us how huge your user base is.

Whether a font specified by @font-face should be used or not does not sound
like a browser-specific behavior. A non-browser implementation that does not 
load fonts over the network e.g. an EPUB reader (or a browser loading page
and fonts from the local drive) is not affected. An implementation that uses 
its own URL scheme is free to define what an origin is for their own purpose.

It would certainly be helpful to discuss specific examples and use-cases in order
to understand where the issue concretely lies vs. abstract generalities like 'devices'
or 'implementations' which guarantee people will think of those implementations and
devices they *know*. But it seems I'm crazy for thinking we should have a chance to
discuss such specifics and use-cases *before* we get to the FO stage.
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 16:22:46 GMT

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