- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:55:53 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Glenn Adams wrote: > I understand this point. But in order for such a mechanism to be > usable, it's implementation in the user agent has to be defined > somewhere. > I do not disagree with this point. I disagree on where WOFF and > CSS3-FONTS has decided to define it. It should not be defined in WOFF or > CSS3-FONTS; it may be (but need not be) defined in a UA definition. The Webfonts working group chartered deliverables include, in addition to the WOFF spec, a WebFont conformance specification This specification will reference the font formats in existing use (OpenType, WOFF, SVG, and EOT), the font referencing and linking specifications (in both CSS and XML serialisations), access policies such as same-origin and CORS, and define which linking mechanisms, policies and formats are required for compliance. WOFF will be the required format for compliance, the others being optional. The Working Group will decide whether to make the formats and linking mechanisms normative references or, on the other hand, produce a document citable by other specifications (CSS3 Fonts, XSL, SVG) when claiming conformance. Am I correct in understanding your objection that the same origin mechanisms applicable to web fonts (whether SOR/CORS as currently specified or the From-Origin header as proposed by Anne) should be properly spec'd in the Webfont conformance specification rather than in the WOFF or CSS specs? JH
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 02:56:39 UTC