- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:13:09 -0700
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
I apologize for upsetting John and a few others. I suggest that the discussion has advanced to a point where we can construct a decision matrix that would simplify and take some or all of the heat out of the discussion, leading quickly to either a consensus or "consensus that no consensus is forthcoming": There are a handful of technical proposals coming clear, that are candidates for a Recommendation. These would be (each a Y/N question): 1. same-origin + CORS? 2. require ttf/otf? 3. require EOTL? 4. require WebOTF? We can add or subtract to that list but those are the most likely suspects. They are 4 independent choices. So, looking just at those, there are 16 possible technical recommendations. The matrix has 16 columns. 1 2 3 etc. not s.o+CORS s.o.+CORS s.o.+CORS not ttf/otf not ttf/otf ttf/otf not EOTL not EOTL not EOTL not WebOTF not WebOTF not WEBOTF It's a little more difficult to label the rows but the rows are labeled in terms of a list of "proposed goals". What is a goal? It's a statement about the practical impact on usage. A list might include: a. obstruct casual download of restricted fonts from web to desktop? b. obstruct casual upload of restricted fonts from web to desktop? c. streamline casual download of libre fonts? d. streamline casual upload of libre fonts? e. require only trusted cross-site linking? f. convey licensing meta-data with font? g. encourage use compatible with unpatched IE<=8? h. encourage compatible use with other unpatched browsers? We could again, add or subtract from that list. Each box in the matrix is thus a goal intersected with a possible combination of features. For example, one box has the row label: "obstruct casual download?" and the column: no on same-origin+cors, yes otf/ttf, no EOTL, no webOTF The question "obstruct casual download?" can be answered yes or no so we can fill in the box with two values, one for each case. no-case / yes-case ------------------ good / bad In other words, if we say "no, don't obstruct casual download" then the case of no s.o.+CORS, yes to otf/ttf, no to EOTL, no to WebOTF -- is good. Perfectly acceptable. If we say "yes, obstruct casual download!" then that same combination of technical requirements is bad since it fails to do the job. For some of those boxes in the matrix, like the one I just described, the values to fill in ("good/bad" in that case) appear to be completely uncontroversial. Other boxes - not so uncontroversial. The discussion is not clear enough, to this point, for there to be widespread agreement. Some rows are not so very controversial. If I'm not mistaken, for example, nobody has any particular problem saying "require only trusted cross-site linking? yes!" That's handy because then we can just draw a big black line through every column in which "s.o.+CORS" has the value "no" -- those columns aren't worth considering. Hey, look, we just cut the design space in half! We only have 8 columns left to consider! Some rows are not entirely independent of one another. For example, "encourage use with unpatched IE<=8?" is incompatible with "require only trusted cross-site linking." If we've crossed out all columns that don't require only trusted cross-site linking, then we can ignore the remaining "yes-case" values in the row for "encourage ... IE<=8". Instead of "good/bad" type values in that row, we can just have "good" or "bad". So we just trimmed the design space further. In fact, we can do similar trimming for the row "encourage unpatched use of other browsers". Some rows in the matrix are controversial. For example, "discourage casual download to desktop" is very distinctly a stated goal of some contributors to the discussion. Others are not exactly in agreement that such discouragement is logically possible. A nice feature of the matrix I'm sketching here is that it highlights those controversies by exposing very precise questions. "If you say 'yes' to such obstruction, does this column get a 'good' or a 'bad'?" And there is a very finite number of such questions to go through. And so there should be a rule that the "yes" proponents of a the question labeling some row get to fill in the "yes-case" half of the box, the "no" proponents the "no-case" half. In the end, we can read off that matrix and have a list of "candidates for consensus". What is a candidate for consensus? Well: For each row, choose a "yes or no" to the goal stated for that row - then read down the corresponding columns for each remaining technical recommendation set. If all entries in the column say "good" then we have a candidate for consensus and a list of goals achieved by that consensus. I am agnostic as to whether or no any candidates for consensus exist. I thought I saw some but when I asked pointed questions in support of them I was accused of such things as trolling. Nevertheless, such a matrix is exactly what I've been working off of in formulating my questions and comments - the only drawback/difference is that I've had to interpolate/guess, apparently offensively incorrectly, how the yes or no proponents of various rows would fill in the yes-case/no-case parts of each box. If we explicitly make and work off of the matrix - someone can volunteer to be secretary and make a web page with a <table> - that can make the discussion much more efficient and less heated. We can quickly identify what the real sticking points are rather than getting caught up in personality conflicts. -t
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 07:13:47 UTC