W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: The unmentionable

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:56:02 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1248908162.5922.119.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 21:53 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]

> > > One last time: if Mozilla's motive to do same-origin/CORS
> > > is valid, why wouldn't it be valid for non-raw fonts ?

> > What is amusing to me is that you are
> > asking me that question after I gave
> > two reasons why it would be arguably valid.

> Precisely. You already know there are perfectly valid
> reasons to do it that way. So why should we worry about
> having to require this feature for the purpose of 'IP protection' ?

There are two reasons.

One is that language about "IP protection" will have 
a very rough time if it appears in a draft Recommendation.
The other is that the proponents of the feature should
be fully informed and realize that the requirement,
should it appear in a Recommendation, will not be
for "IP protection".

We are here working towards a Recommendation, no?

> Why worry about future formal objections to a requirement
> a working draft wouldn't even need to state in order to justify
> the feature in the first place ?

So that people who are considering advocating for
the requirement are not misled in their expectations
and so that we can begin to advance the dialog by 
more explicitly considering what a draft Recommendation
will actually say.

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 22:56:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC