- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:28:40 -0700
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > The proponents argue for EOTL with same-origin+CORS. > The rationales: > > 1) A required conversion step by authors > acts as a low garden wall. I have never heard this argument until now, and I do not believe that font vendors are concerned about that particular direction of usage. > None of those stands up to scrutiny. ... > UA and desktop > implementers will surely automate the conversion > step for downloaders. Beyond the UA's own needs for making the fonts work, which may indeed involve conversion and placement in the browser cache, what evidence do you have for this statement? What UA maker or desktop OS vendor has said they want to or are even willing to "automate the conversion step" back to desktop fonts for users downloading web fonts? On a not-unrelated note, I think I need to figure out how to get Gmail to do a killfile.... T
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 19:29:30 UTC