RE: apple and same-origin restrictions

Yes, it's surprisingly full of nonsense. There are apparently no limits
to what qualifies for the ritual invocation of 'pseudo-DRM'. Invoking
'game theory' is a new angle I hadn't seen before though. Creative!

It also seems unclear that IE9 does not just support any raw font and
completely misses the fact that both Firefox and IE apply SOR to all 
fonts, not just WOFF. As for the CORS-not-being-a-good-fit argument, 
it glosses over the fact that the bad-fit-solution has been shipping 
for some time in Firefox, works fine and is supported on the server 
side by the same web services that are used as a justification for
not doing the work.

It's also nice that Apple is clear on what priority it gives to
conformance and interop: 'But we are willing to ignore the spec 
if it's not changed, as with other specs that we think are a bad 
idea.'

(Left as an exercise to the reader: what the reaction would be
if the author of this gem had a microsoft.com email address).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Slye
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:06 PM
> To: WOFF Working Group
> Subject: Re: apple and same-origin restrictions
> 
> This remark from Apple in that thread -- "... in some ways it would be
> better if WOFF itself would go away, since it has no real benefit over
> other font formats" -- reveals a breathtakingly simplistic view of WOFF.
> 
> -Christopher
> 
> 
> On Jan 31, 2011, at 5:52 PM, John Daggett wrote:
> 
> >
> > Although no comment was made during the last call period, some of the
> Webkit folks at Apple are apparently opposed to the use of same-origin
> restrictions:
> >
> >  https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-January/015793.html
> >  https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2011-January/015797.html
> >
> > David, Julio, is this something you were aware of?  It would have been
> nice to have these comments made publicly during the last call period.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Daggett
> >
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2011 06:22:14 UTC