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

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

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 17:01:39 -0400
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D020819F1BC@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:26 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.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this whole issue? It seems that CDN should be completely transparent for UA, and that content and resources such as CSS and fonts would appear to a browser as coming from the same origin it was requested, regardless of whether CDN is used or not. So, if content is in fact comes from CDN - how does it affect same-origin restriction?

Thank you,

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 21:02:30 UTC

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