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

> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Garrick Van Buren
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:01 AM
> To: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What constitutes protection [was: About using CORS]


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

Font licenses were not the main reason but it was a useful side effect.

 
> 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.

The awkwardness already exists. Firefox has limited fonts to the same
origin since the beginning. It sounds like no one has complained.


> 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' ?

Higher vulnerability exposure in the short term. And, if licensing terms do
not change, you may reduce author choice by losing a large chunk of the new 
fonts you wanted to access. It could mean you're back to using the exact
same set of fonts you have access to today, but with built-in compression.

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 13:50:22 UTC