- From: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:57:07 +0600
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com > <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote: > I don't see any reason to stand against CWT, honestly. > There is one, the point about deployability that I keep bringing up. I > guess I'll bring it up again: > > 1) An EOT-Classic font with a rootstring is not a conforming CWT font, > per the latest CWT draft. (Personally I and Sylvain think the draft > could be changed to allow this, but other people, including Chris Lilley > apparently, don't want to do this.) EOT Classic fonts don't "claim" to be conforming CWT / EOT lite fonts. > 2) Most font licenses will require authors to apply some kind of > same-origin restriction Folks from Monotype, Ascender and others have expressed support for CWT / EOT lite ~ between them they represent a large percent of commercial fonts. > 3) Given (1), the only way for authors to implement that restriction for > IE users will be to implement Referer checking - C
Received on Saturday, 24 October 2009 03:57:54 UTC