- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:05:11 -0700
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 17:41 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote: >> I assert that if the W3C promotes the distribution of files with root >> strings, it will compromise its credibility. I agree with Dave's statement, but perhaps not surprisingly, not with Tom Lord's spin on that statement: > An EOTL Recommendation that does not encourage > EOTC support with rootstrings ignored effectively > endorses the use of rootstrings as a UA-enforced > form of DRM. Bollocks. EOTC is off the table for a W3C recommendation, which is why EOTL exists. If EOTC is off the table, then it needs to be completely off the table. What you are suggesting is that the W3C recommend circumvention of an existing technical measure in a legacy format: you are suggesting that the W3C recommend contravening the DMCA act. If I were as keen on conspiratorial fantasies as you are, I'd be inclined to think that you are deliberately trying to lead the W3C into dangerous legal waters. EOTC fonts should be completely ignored by all browsers except IE. It should be obvious that this is actually in the interests of the EOTL format, because if EOTC fonts are not interoperable with other browsers, this encourages both font makers and authors to use EOTL instead. If, on the other hand, non-IE browsers treat EOTC fonts as if they are EOTL, then such fonts will stick around much longer, just waiting for someone to sue the browser maker or the W3C for circumventing the rootstring mechanism in EOTC. Again: if browser makers don't want to enforce rootstrings, then they have to stay the heck away from them. Ignoring them is not an option because rootstrings may be considered a technical measure within the definition of DMCA. Only a court can determine for sure whether they fall under the DMCA, but insofar as the EOTC spec says that user agents *must* respect rootstrings they seem to me a much surer bet than e.g. OT embedding bits which applications only should respect. JH
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:06:00 UTC