W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: What constitutes protection [was: About using CORS]

From: Garrick Van Buren <garrick@kernest.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 08:01:14 -0500
Message-Id: <89E2EF5A-45AE-4FF7-87DF-5A6FDA93F76C@kernest.com>
To: www-font@w3.org
A quick question.

It seems to me - these checks (single-origin, and otherwise) are only being discussed to 'prevent leakage'. 

Protection from that leakage is only needed because of some fonts licenses. 

Sure, I'm new here - but it seems awkward that we're working towards a specifying protective checks for all fonts - when not all fonts have a license that discourages leakage.

If we're going to design a ruleset for all fonts based on the characteristics of some of them - what's the downside of no 'protection against leakage' ?

Garrick Van Buren
612 325 9110
Free, Subscription, and Web Native fonts.

On May 4, 2010, at 1:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, 04 May 2010 15:12:49 +0900, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> Yes, there was a big kerfuffle over video. A few reasons why video is
>> probably different from fonts:
>> a) video is huge, so much more likely to need CDN support or at least to be placed on dedicated servers. Fonts are much smaller so it's generally going to be easy to serve a font on the same server as the rest of the normal page content.
> I just checked cnn.com and it seems to be using CDN for style sheets. If it is using them for style sheets it seems likely it would use them for fonts too, as they are typically larger than style sheets.
>> b) people want to put links to "viral videos" in their blogs. I don't see
>> "viral fonts" as being such a big cultural medium, but even if they are,
>> people can copy them around easily enough.
>> c) there is a well-established precedent with Flash and Quicktime that you can link to videos cross-site. There is not such a well-established
>> precedent for fonts.
>>> They might not like it for instance if stripping of some headers by an
>>> intermediary renders the site in some horrible fallback font. It seems
>>> same-origin licensing requirements would also be a problem for these sites.
>> We shall see what authors say, but if you want to increase reliability it's a matter of copying the font to your own server, which is probably not a big deal. That protects you from the other site being down as well.
> I was mostly thinking of sites like cnn.com.
> -- 
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 13:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:34 UTC