WOFF without SOR?

John Hudson wrote:

 > Bill Davis wrote:
 > 
 > > http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/ states: "When using such fonts, user
 > > agents MUST implement a 'same-origin restriction' on the downloading of WOFF
 > > files using the same-origin matching algorithm described in the HTML5
 > > specification..."
 > 
 > > What part of "MUST" does Opera not understand?
 > 
 > I presume we have Anne van Kesteren to thank for this. At the 
 > face-to-face meeting in Lyon

John, Bill, I don't your rethoric advances your case. Neither does
singling our people or companies.

The last time I checked, Chrome, Safari and Opera didn't support SOR
for WOFF files. 

The WOFF submission didn't include SOR, and adding it to the WD has
been controversial.

Personally, I can see that it makes sense; it prevents people from
leeching bandwidth off innocent users. I don't think it's a crucial
part of the "protection" that WOFF provides, but I understand if
others disagree.

Given that the WD describes the "WOFF File Format 1.0", I can
understand why people argue that the spec shouldn't make demands at
the HTTP level. Architecturally, it seems clear that the WOFF format
is orthogonal to SOR. I therefore suggest we split the SOR part out
from the WOFF WD and place it in a separate draft. 

For the record, this is consistant with my position, as expressed
here:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010May/0012.html

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 12:40:38 UTC