- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:54:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> it's up to each UA to balance these competing desires. I agree. > It's also our job to protect our users' privacy. By turning off local fonts **by default** you are protecting your users' privacy. This is indeed an acceptable choice given that tradeoff. However, by making it impossible to turn certain fonts back on even when the user cannot read the page without them, you are not protecting that user's privacy, you're turning them into a non user: they cannot use the browser to read the page they wanted. (Semi-sarcastic / semi-true addition: in that case, the browser is no more useful to that user than a brick, since neither a brick nor a browser than cannot display their language will let them browse that page. However, the browser is worse than a brick in terms of privacy, since an actual brick will have zero fingerprinting surface, but which is not the case of the no-local-font browser) -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/5625#issuecomment-710061958 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 16 October 2020 13:54:16 UTC