- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 14:33:16 +0200
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org Group" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Also sprach Levantovsky, Vladimir:
> Let's have our regularly scheduled call this week to review the
> remaining action items, tie up the loose ends (if any) and get the
> spec ready for the transition to CR.
I'll be there today.
I'd like to find consensus on text about SOR. The current editor's
draft states:
The WebFonts WG believes that the default Same-Origin restriction
would be better applied to all fonts referenced from @font-face,
rather than one specific format. Therefore, if CSS3 Fonts
[CSS3-Fonts] adds a normative requirement for a Same-Origin
restriction, the WebFonts WG will drop it from the WOFF
specification and instead refer to CSS3 Fonts.
I think this is too specific; I believe WOFF can be well served by a
more general SOR mechanism which is not defined by the CSS WG (which,
arguably, should not be no more concerned about HTTP headers than the
Fonts WG). I therefore suggest language along the lines of:
The Fonts WG believes that a mechanism for having Same-Origin
restrictions on fonts -- WOFF as well as other fonts -- is
beneficial. The exact mechanism is not defined in this
specification.
This encodes what we all agree on, no?
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 12:33:50 UTC