Ah, well that is a entirely different matter. It sounds like to me that you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong): - the current Web (resource access model) is outdated (or broken) - the Web model needs to be changed (to fix this) - the WebFonts WG is willing to mandate a backward incompatible change, starting with Web Fonts If this is in fact the position of the WG, then it is important to make this more clear and more visible, and will require substantially more due diligence and buy-in to obtain wide-spread agreement. Is such a fix or change to the Web model part of the WG's chartered scope? Regards, Glenn On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:35 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > Glenn wrote: > > That translates to respecting the consideration of authors. However, if >> authors do not explicitly declare a restriction, then we believe that is >> tantamount to declaring that access is unrestricted. That is the current Web >> model, not the converse. >> > > ... > > > Samsung is pursuing this point of view because we believe that a >> restrictive default in the absence of a declaration of authorial intention >> is incompatible with current Web practice, and that it represents a backward >> incompatible change to such practice. >> > > Yes, this is now the crux of the matter. > > Tab has suggested the counter argument, which is not that Glenn is wrong > that this is counter to the current Web model, but that the current Web > model is outdated. > > JH > >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 20:42:16 UTC