RE: Conference call agenda for Wednesday, May 4

The current wording reflects the consensus of the group. This is exactly what we discussed and agreed on.
I don't believe that any spec would be better served by a vague, general and ambiguous statements, and the WOFF spec is not an exception.
For the record - we had the consensus to mandate SOR for WOFF, and we did reach the consensus that this mandate would better be link-specific (i.e. @font-face) rather than type-specific. The current wording says exactly this and I see no reason to change it. If the CSS group agrees with us and adopts SOR for fonts linked with @font-face - the SOR mandate in the WOFF spec will be removed, otherwise it stays as is. This is the consensus.

Thank you and regards,
Vladimir
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:33 AM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org Group
> Subject: Re: Conference call agenda for Wednesday, May 4
> 
> 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 13:11:23 UTC