Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Fonts Working Group (until 2008-10-30)

On Thursday 2008-10-02 13:48 +0000, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> Today W3C Advisory Committee Representatives received a Proposal
> for a new Fonts Activity [0] (see the W3C Process
> Document description of Activity Proposals [1]). This proposal
> includes a draft charter for the Fonts Working Group:
>   http://www.w3.org/Fonts/Misc/charter-2008 

Below are the comments Mozilla sent as part of this Advisory
Committee review.

-David

4. Support for the Proposal
===========================

My organization:

  ( ) supports this Activity Proposal as is.
  ( ) suggests changes to this Activity Proposal, but support the
      proposal whether or not the changes are adopted (your details
      below).
  (X) suggests changes to this Activity Proposal, and only support
      the proposal if the changes are adopted (your details below).
  ( ) opposes this Activity Proposal and requests that this group be
      closed (your details below).
  ( ) abstains from this review.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):

This is a somewhat unusual review in that it's no longer clear what
the charter that we're supposed to be reviewing is (given the recent
discussion).

We believe there is no need to develop a new font format for the
Web, since TrueType/OpenType fonts already exist, and are being
implemented in multiple browsers.  Restricting fonts to same-origin
access by default, with the site serving the font able to loosen
that restriction using Access Control, is sufficient to prevent
accidental violation of font licenses (e.g., by copying and pasting
a style sheet that references a font on another server).  This
proposal fits with our position that default access for new types of
resources should in general be same-origin; for further details see
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2008-November/001958.html .
(Note that our position on Access Control was somewhat
misrepresented in http://www.w3.org/Fonts/Misc/eot-report-2008 .  We
are NOT proposing any additions to the Access Control specification.)

Use of the most common already-existing font format makes authoring
much easier, which we believe is critical to being adopted and thus
improving the Web.  Authoring would be made harder by requiring a
new font format that requires an extra step for authors in the
authoring process and potentially (depending on the requirements of
that format) complicates site staging, testing, and load balancing
by embedding the allowed hosts inside the content.

While most font vendors currently do not license their fonts for use
as OpenType / TrueType on the Web, most font licenses also forbid
use as EOT.  We believe that problem, with either format, will be
lessened once a market exists:  in other words, once browsers
support downloadable fonts and Web authors want to use them, some
Web authors will want to pay for fonts that can be used on the Web,
and at least some font vendors will want to compete in that market.
(The existence of this demand will likely also encourage development
of more free fonts.)  This is more likely to happen if it is easier
for authors to use downloadable fonts.  Initial use, with either
format, is likely to revolve around free fonts until commercial font
licenses are updated.


However, there has been discussion recently of a compromise proposal
in which browsers would implement two font formats:
 (1) OpenType / TrueType
 (2) a somewhat obfuscated format (details vary) that cannot be
     dropped in and installed on a system and may or may not be able
     to be dropped in on other Web sites
We would be willing to support this compromise proposal under two
conditions:
 (a) Our support for part (2) of the proposal would lead to
     wider support for part (1) in other browsers.  If this is not
     the case, then we see no reason at all to support the
     compromise, and thus no reason at all to support any W3C work
     in this area.
 (b) The format required by part (2) of the compromise does not
     cause increased legal risk for open-source projects (e.g., due
     to DMCA restrictions in 17 U.S.C. § 1201 - § 1204; see
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sup_01_17_10_12.html ).
     We're still working internally to understand whether this could
     be a problem.


We're not entirely sure what part of the discussion needs to be
reflected in the charter, although it clearly requires significant
modification from the charter currently under review.


5. Participation
================

If this proposal is approved, my organization would be interested in
participating in the following groups. Note: This answer is
non-binding; after the review a formal Call for Participation will
be sent for each approved charter.

  [X] Fonts Working Group

6. Support for Deliverables of the group
========================================

My organization:

  [X] intends to review drafts as they are published and send
      comments.
  [X] intends to develop experimental implementations and send
      experience reports (your details below).
  [X] intends to develop products based on this work (your details
      below).
  [X] intends to apply this technology in our operations.
  [ ] would be interested in participating in any press activity
      connected with this group.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):

See conditions above under "Support for the Proposal".

7. Expected Implementation Schedules
====================================

If you expect to implement some deliverables of this Activity,
please indicate any known schedule for such implementations, without
commitment.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):

We expect to ship support for downloadable OpenType / TrueType fonts
in Firefox 3.1, hopefully in the first half of 2009.  Support for
any additional font formats would not be able to make this release;
it would have to be in later releases.

8. Detailed Comments, Reasons, or Modifications
===============================================

In addition to any comments you may have, please provide details
about your answers. This may include, but is not restricted to,
technical issues or issues associated with patent claims associated
with the specification.

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 04:58:33 UTC