Re: Web font linking progress summary

Dirk Pranke wrote:
> The three concrete requirements I've seeming heard from the foundry
> representatives are:
> 
> 1) A solution MUST optionally prevent casual
> cross-linking/deep-linking (perhaps solved by CORS, also solved by EOT
> w/ root strings),
> 2) A solution MUST optionally prevent casual user download (which CORS
> doesn't address but maybe EOT + root strings do)
> 3) A solution MUST optionally prevent trivial interop between web
> fonts and desktop fonts (which EOT and the other variants do address,
> at least until EOT gets baked into the O/S)

Could you provide references to relevant messages (you can link to
individual messages at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/)?

If I'm understanding this list of requirements correctly, all browsers
are required to implement all these features but it's up to the authors
if they choose to use those features? I believe that that list cannot be
implemented by browser vendors.

Some browser vendors have already stated that they probably cannot
enforce any kind of rootstring proposal due to fear of law suits
(especially DMCA):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0185.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0182.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0263.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0136.html

In addition, rootstrings encoded in font files make are harder for
content authors than, say CORS.

What does the requirement 2) mean in concrete terms? How would such
"prevention" work? Are foundries in fact asking for a DRM system ("The
user MUST be able to use the font data to render the page but user MUST
NOT be able to download and save the data as a local file")?

Any mechanism that resembles a DRM is out of question (Mozilla has
stated that they are not willing to implement such system):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0254.html

Do you think that EOT Lite
(http://blog.fontembedding.com/post/2009/06/29/Revised-Web-Fonts-Proposal.aspx)
would be acceptable to font foundries? It doesn't implement 1) or 2) above.

-- 
Mikko