- From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:51:05 -0700
- To: <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Is there an argument to be made _against_ requiring SOR? I also agree it should be required, but I'm just wondering if that's a slam dunk, or if we need to anticipate complaints or arguments against it. I'm wondering if there's any history (i.e. traditional objections) to that kind of thing. -Christopher On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: >> 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 Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:09:04 UTC