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 20:14:56 -0700
To: info@ascenderfonts.com
Cc: www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <1248923696.5922.175.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 22:04 -0500, Bill Davis wrote:
> >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:45 PM
> >This thread started because someone from Ascender stated their position 
> >and I made the point I did.
> My apologies to all for stepping into a pile of doggy doo, and having it
> smell up so many posts/replies. -:)

It's not your bad.  I ticked off Sylvain accidentally a 
ways back and we've had some difficulties keeping 
civil tongues in both directions since then.  I think
it's actually getting better but I won't leap to that
conclusion just yet.

> Even though this thread had quite a few twists & turns, I do want to thank
> you all for explaining in detail the various issues and the reasoning behind
> some of the decisions that have been made. The security issues, especially
> with fonts, need careful consideration. 

> I think that the two examples of rationale for same-origin restrictions
> which Thomas Lord pointed out (helping to protect the bandwidth of servers
> offering fonts, and helping to protect users from malicious fonts) do make
> sense, and I will keep this in mind as we move forward with a web font
> solution.

Off we go!  I think we're almost "done" with
the conceptual work.  Hard questions remain about:

1) The reality of the backwards-compat promise
of EOT-lite.

2) Whether to also endorse (require?) a format
with new meta-data like .webfont / the mime-wrapper

2.1) If so, then why the mime-wrapper approach
to coding the .webfont accomplishments is better 
than .webfont itself to such an extent that we have
to go that way.  :-).  Obviously I'm a little biased
on that one.

Things can still go badly wrong if there's a big
split on (1) or (2) so, note the mixers, there's
where to (try to) stick your wedge.

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 03:15:36 UTC

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