Re: WebFonts WG Kick-off

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