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

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:55:42 +0200
Message-ID: <1299175246.20100512195542@w3.org>
To: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 8:09:22 PM, Sergey wrote:

SM> For me, new definition is as confusing as definition of
SM> "document" we had problems with before. I would leave all this to
SM> EULA language and not try to formalize it. 

I agree with that. The final arbiter has to be the actual license agreement between the organisation  or individual creating the font and the organisation or individual using it on the Web.

Neither the woff-creating software, nor the Web server, nor the browser or other Web client, should be involved in policing, or rather attempting to police on the basis of inadequate information, whether the font is being used within the terms of the license.

That is a legal matter, not a technical one, and is entirely between the two organisations involved (or, if they disagree, their respective lawyers).

If PDF embedding applications have settled on a machine-readable interpretation of that license for PDF embedding then fine, but

a) that is a whole different case from Web use
b) we shouldn't muddy the waters there by redefining or adding bits

If the WOFF specification has to say anything about the embedding bits, it should solely be to clarify that these do not apply to Web usage.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 17:56:12 UTC

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