RE: .webfont Proposal 2

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of karsten luecke


>Foundries are not saying that one or more specific root strings MUST be
>defined in each and every web font (be it .webfont or EOT). Foundries
>are saying that the web font format must make it POSSIBLE to define root
>strings (I remind of the "any" in the passage you cited). Which is a
>difference.
>It will be up to each foundry to decide if they make root string
>restriction part of the licensing conditions or not. Not a once-and-for-
>all decision by browser makers and web developers. Two examples:
>(1) A client like myself licenses for my small site a typeface from
>Letterror. I provide my two or three domains, they add them to the web
>font, and I can upload the file to my server. This could be done
>automatically via their online shop where I would enter my two or three
>domains.
>(2) A larger client needs a license for extensive use. He would contact
>the foundry in person anyway to talk about the price etc which would
>include discussing whether root string restriction makes sense or his
>web develpers apply any of the methods suggested earlier.

Karsten, what Hakon and John do not want to do is enforce those rootstrings
in the browser. This was one of the reasons EOT was not acceptable. So while
it's fine for the file to include any information the license requires, including
URLs, Mozilla and Opera will not use these URLs to enforce your license by, for example,
ignoring the font file. Many previous discussions have established that we will
achieve interop if rootstrings are required to be enforced by the user agent.

Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 14:11:14 UTC