- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:45:07 +0000
- To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
[Christopher Slye:] > If it wasn't obvious, the point of my original message was simply to get a > clear statement from Opera, for the benefit of WG members and list > readers, on their intentions. Yes, that was clear. But Opera's intent on this has been clear all along. (At least I thought it was). Not using a CORS feature for an unintended purpose matters more to them than interop. Their position is that a new alternative mechanism ought to be created for this type of SOR. In the meantime, any web site operating in a country with a high share of Opera users would presumably have to do extra work to comply with web font licenses e.g. Referrer checks and other techniques to mitigate licensing issues and possible bandwidth leeching. So site owners may have to suffer extra costs where Opera does well. I'd think that's not in Opera's interest but oh well. It's their browser. > > Of course I'd be pleased to see Opera implement SOR for WOFF as currently > required. Adobe's general confidence in WOFF is undermined if SOR is not > applied consistently among browsers. So the fact that about 80% of browsers out there will support SOR (95% if WebKit also does) is not enough ? In practice, it means most sites will have to comply in order to serve most of their users.
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 18:45:46 UTC