- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:19:57 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
Florian Rivoal wrote: > The current draft of Anne's proposal[1], which is the solution Opera > prefers, > uses MUST when describing how its algorithm should be applied, so we are > fine > with the mechanism being mandatory. > Do you see any reason to prefer the same origin policy over From-Origin? No. I think the From-Origin header is a very clever idea, and as I recall there is general agreement in the Webfonts WG that it would be better than any font-specific application of SOR/CORS. Our only concern with From-Origin is that it isn't real yet. What I am personally leaning towards now is moving and rewording same origin text from the WOFF spec to the chartered but yet-to-be-drafted Webfonts Conformance Specification, so that we do not lose it altogether while awaiting From-Origin. This would, I think, address the concern of WG members that led us to identify the current text as 'at risk' while not removing it yet. We have a conference call on Wednesday, and I'm sure all this will be on the agenda. JH
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 16:20:33 UTC