- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:50:51 -0700
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > On Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:43 PM Thomas Lord wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 20:15 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote: > > > I should point out that it was my suggestion that a browser could > > > simply reject rendering of a font that had root strings. My reason > > for > > > suggesting that was Hakon's concern that a browser that simply > > ignored > > > the root string could open itself up to DMCA action or some such. > > > > That alone is justification for taking EOT-lite off > > the table, if what you say sticks. That is why I ask > > for a positive assertion that UAs should render even in > > the face of a mis-matched non-nil rootstring. > > > > As I understand what the current draft says > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0780.html), the > EOT-Lite conforming UA will render a font if it's capable to do so, > regardless of the presence of rootstring (i.e. completely ignoring the > root strings, whether mismatched or not). That will relieve my concerns in this area. Can I get an "amen" from Ascender and MSFT? > Other means, such as > same-origin restrictions and CORS will be in place to prevent > hot-linking, etc. Damn straight. Amen, brother. -t > Regards, > Vladimir > > > -t > > > > >
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 04:51:32 UTC