- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:02:03 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@microsoft.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
David Singer wrote: > I think perhaps that the shoulds should be musts I'd be very happy for that to be the case. The impression I get from Håkon's comments re. this text being non-normative is that he and perhaps others might have objections to 'must' in this context. > or the language needs to talk about not making the font available outside its licensed use (if the client can tell it's freely distributable, then you can expose/install it if you like, but I don't know how it would tell) I don't think that is reliably determinable using any existing font data*, and in any case if a font is made available under a free license then one can reasonably assume that the un-WOFF'd TTF or OTF font is readily available for download and installation. I can't think of a situation in which installing the unwrapped content of a WOFF file is a necessary action, so it is easiest simply to recommend that this should not be done. * An 'Installable Embedding' fsType bit setting might be the relevant datum, but given the desire of at least some font vendors to clearly disassociate the 'document embedding' bits from web linking permission, I'd be wary of any assumption that such setting implies license permission to specifically install a font that has been unwrapped from a WOFF file. JH
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 00:02:38 UTC