Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:38 AM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
>
>> Regarding the proposed new bit setting and description: The default
>> setting for all reserved bits is currently 'zero'. I am concerned that
>> defining the new bit as proposed ("No web use allowed") would automatically
>> make all existing fonts 'allowed' for web use, which I doubt has ever been
>> an intent. The reversed interpretation "Web use allowed" would be safe with
>> regard to existing fonts, and it would also play nicely with the existing
>> definition of other embedding restrictions, including "Restricted License
>> Embedding" - if both bits are set it would be clearly understood that
>> document embedding is restricted while web use is allowed.
>
> Yes, that is a better idea.
>
> JH

Hurm. I have a practical concern with that. What would we expect UAs
to do with fonts they encounter that don't have that bit set? Reject
them all? That hardly seems practical, and I would expect the browser
folks to object strenuously to this if that was the expectation. If
that was *not* the expectation, I don't see much use for the bit.

In fact, the only obvious ways I see out of that are to either:

1) Bump the OS/2 table version so that UAs can know the bit means something

2) have TWO mutually exclusive bits for this new function. One
explicitly says web use allowed, the other explicitly says it's
disallowed.

I also have an independent concern: what *kind* of web use is implied
by the bit. It seems like foundries are all over the place today in
what kind(s) of web use they are okay with (if/when they allow any).
Does this bit mean WOFF is okay? What about EOT? Cufon? Flash? SVG?
Naked fonts?

Cheers,

T

-- 
"I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a
hands-free headset." — http://xkcd.com/736/

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:00:15 UTC