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 16:45:25 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1248911125.5922.145.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 23:23 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> If we already have good solid reasons to require the feature, and those
> reasons have nothing to do with IP protection, there is no need to spend time
> worrying about the consequences of promoting the requirement for IP
> protection in the spec for this exact same feature.

This thread started because someone from 
Ascender stated their position and I made the
point I did.  They expressed appreciation and
agreement for it.  I don't know what you are
going on about.

> Did someone request that the actual standard require same-origin/CORS
> for the specific purpose of license enforcement ? 

Someone came very close and was happy to receive
the caution I offered to them.

What you are trying to accomplish, on the other hand,
is unclear.

> All I've seen is
> Bill Davis from Ascender stating that such solutions do offer general
> benefits to them. (As well as for font users like John Hudson's clients
> who would be happier if some kid couldn't just link to their custom font from
> his MySpace page). So while I gather the use-case is significant to them,
> I haven't noted any expectation that this exact solution be mandated in
> a standard. Again, I may have missed it.

He seemed to appreciate the feedback.

> But as there may already be good reasons to mandate the feature that do
> not involve IP protection, even better if font vendors see such benefits
> in this same solution without us even having to go there !

Now you are restating something I said in the 
very message that started your long attack on

> Unless you'd worried there are font vendors who would only license their
> fonts for web use if same-origin/CORS were required for IP protection vs.
> implemented for unrelated reasons ? That seems far-fetched.

I suggest that you go back and read this thread
again from the point where I offered my caution to 

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 23:46:09 UTC

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