- From: Addison Phillips via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 18:11:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I18N discussed this in our most recent [teleconference](https://www.w3.org/2020/03/12-i18n-minutes.html) and I was [actioned ](https://www.w3.org/International/track/actions/869) to write this. In general our thoughts are as follows: 1. Fingerprinting users can be used for bad things. This can especially apply to minority language users. 2. Many minority languages are not supported by default system fonts and get little (or occasionally no) support from fallback fonts such as Noto. Special rendering needs such as conjuncts or ligatures or the need for additional styles are often best effected by the installation of fonts. This may be accompanied by other with other language support features (which might also be fingerprinted??) such as keyboards, dictionaries, etc. We believe there needs to be a mechanism to allow user-installed fonts to be rendered into web pages to support these sorts of user requirements. This mechanism should not be super obscure. (We did discuss different mechanisms in our call, but defer to browser makers to design good customer experiences) 3. Other user audiences also benefit. For example, many scholarly works (particularly on ancient languages, but by no means limited to these) depend on custom fonts. Similarly, some consumers want to use different fonts. 4. Webfonts are the future, but some language support communities might find it difficult to provision these in the short term. So: our tendency is to recommend that CSS guard against fingerprinting by default, but provide clear normative guidance to allow customer-installed fonts to be used, perhaps via some whitelisting mechanism. -- GitHub Notification of comment by aphillips Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4497#issuecomment-600221068 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2020 18:11:31 UTC