Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

Revised wording based on comment from David Berlow here
http://www.typophile.com/node/69631/#comment-411286

 
 Web authors are expected to make adequate efforts
 to ensure that the font license corresponds to the
 intended web use. It MUST NOT be assumed that
 document embedding permissions in the font’s OS/2
 table fsType field correspond to permission for use
 of the font in a WOFF container. However, a font’s
 fsType settings, MUST NOT affect load behavior in
 user agents and MUST NOT affect whether tools
 produce a WOFF file from a font.

Tom Phinney's recent concern about OS/2 fsType version remains 
outstanding. This wording would make any future fsType bit assignments 
subject to the same terms, so we might want to make this specific to the 
current table version. I don't think this is likely to become a 
practical concern, since most of us are thinking along David's lines, in 
one way or another, of more exhaustive and precise permissions being 
documented elsewhere in the font, but Tom's right that we should the 
implications for future bits.

JH

Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 19:19:40 UTC