Re: WebFonts WG Kick-off (was RE: WOFF submission published)

On 21 Apr 2010, at 18:55, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 21, 2010 6:46 AM Chris Lilley wrote:
>> LV> 2) Decide on the conformance requirements:
>> LV>    - whether any references to same-origin restrictions and the
>> LV> CORS mechanism to relax them should be part of the WOFF spec, or
>> LV>    - whether it should be a separate deliverable from the group,
>> and
>> LV>    - whether this should be part of the conformance requirements.
>> Yes, we need to decide that.
>> In my opinion, regardless of where that aspect of conformance goes, it
>> should not be optional. Same-origin (as a default, with CORS to relax
>> it) only really works if its required.
> After spending some years involved in the standards work with different groups and different technologies, I developed a strong 'personal' position against anything being optional. If a component is needed and useful it ought to be required. Optional components create a mess for all parties involved - implementers have to make their own (sometimes not well-informed) decisions on what to support or not to support, and anything optional sure means that the developers cannot rely on it.
> Unless we come to a deadlock, I would strongly encourage the group to consider everything required for conformance, and I absolutely agree that same-origin restriction will only work if required.

Agreed. I think a clear conformance requirement regarding same-origin restrictions (or some comparable mechanism) is critical to the success of the webfonts work. This may be the single most important deliverable the Webfonts WG needs to produce, IMO.


Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 18:22:41 UTC