- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:49:48 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Christopher Slye wrote: > 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. The argument against it is that it's inconvenient in some cases, situations where a page is served from one host and resources from another. CORS can be used to relax this but it requires access at a level that may not be available in some situations. Not a common scenario but it is possible. But I don't think this a strong argument against using it as the restriction generally aids the hosting service by preventing cross-linking by default. John
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:50:53 UTC