- From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Richard Fink wrote: > > This is what I mean about legacy behavior limiting the flexibility > > of a new standard, with EOT-Lite font vendors can't enforce > > same-origin restrictions which they seem to be asking for. > > I must say, now that FF supports linking to raw font files, it's > amazing how you have become an advocate for every font-vendor's wish! I'm not an advocate, I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies here. > But your conclusion doesn't follow from the facts. What the new EOT > does is what it does and as long as there is a line to cross between > the web font file and the desktop, that seems to have broad support. > Whatever the new EOT does, it does. Whatever the new standard does, it > does. There is no limitation on "flexibility" - whatever that means - > that holds over from one to the other. Er, what? EOT-Lite fonts cannot be used if a EULA specifies that same-origin restrictions are required, since legacy versions of IE won't enforce any form of same-origin restriction. Are you saying that's incorrect? Or that the example was incorrect?
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 21:01:45 UTC