If I may, I’d like to draw a parallel and say that a mechanism by which access restrictions are controlled is a sort of API that is intended to be used by authors. As such, an API is only usable if it’s supported by all implementations. If API is optional and can be supported or not supported at will, then using this API by authors isn’t really an option, IMO. Vladimir From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Adams Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 5:46 PM To: Tab Atkins Jr. Cc: John Hudson; W3C Style; 3668 FONT; www-font@w3.org Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin <snip> Second, I am not saying "they shouldn't be specified". I'm saying they (same-origin mandate) should not be specified in WOFF or CSS3-FONTS. These are not the correct place to mandate or enforce such restrictions. If there are restrictions on access, the mechanism by which this is imposed and enforce should be specified where the access occurs, and that is not in WOFF or CSS3-FONTS, but in a UA that uses these. Further, it must be possible to build UAs that are not required to enforce such restrictions, and which remain compliant. G.
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 13:46:02 UTC