Re: What constitutes protection [was: About using CORS]

On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:17:04 +0900, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Anyway, I can understand
>> there might be reasons for a new font format that are beyond my
>> comprehension. As I said elsewhere, I am mostly just surprised that
>> shifting a few bits around makes people more comfortable.
>
> Anne, have you read my attempted summary of why a format distinction  
> such as WOFF makes font makers more comfortable than serving naked TTF  
> fonts? I don't want to argue the point any more than I have already over  
> the past year, especially not when we've got at last to the working  
> group stage and have the support I think we need to make WOFF a  
> realistic web font standard. But I do like people to understand where  
> the font makers are coming from, just as I've made an effort to  
> understand the perspective of browser developers.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't believe that policing  
the Web will work. Even with a new format. It also seems counter and lacks  
in understanding as to how the Web operates. I cannot help but think of  
the media conglomerates trying to persuade our government to be allowed to  
see if the packets users are transferring contain copyrighted material.

Again though let me stress that while I am against a new format, I am not  
at all planning on raising objections against it. If pretty much all  
browser vendors (including us apparently :-)) want to incur the cost for a  
new format so be it. I am interested however in keeping the same-origin  
policy as consistent as possible across the Web platform.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 03:02:55 UTC