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

RE: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 20:37:14 -0400
To: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
Cc: <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, <www-font@w3.org>, "'David Berlow'" <dberlow@fontbureau.com>
Message-ID: <002b01caf559$194b7330$4be25990$@com>
Friday, May 14, 2010 3:19 PM <tiro@tiro.com>:

John Hudson wrote:

	>Web authors are expected to make adequate efforts
	>to ensure that the font license corresponds to the
	>intended web use.

John,

What is an "adequate effort"? Have you read any EULA's lately? Today, no effort could possibly be adequate, even experienced IP attorneys will disagree.

How about we get rid of the language you propose and exchange it with:

"Font vendors are expected to make their licenses simple and understandable and inclusive of all conceivable uses on the web." WOFF, SVG, Data URIs, the whole shebang.
That would solve the problem just as well. No?

Or, since we seem to be on the road to mandating everyone's behavior, not just UA's looking to conform to a technical spec, how about having some of the members of the working group draft a Universal Web License for web fonts?
I find it hard to believe Microsoft, Adobe, and Monotype have a shortage of lawyers willing to give it a shot.
That might solve the problem, too.

      >It MUST NOT be assumed that
	>document embedding permissions in the font’s OS/2
	>table fsType field correspond to permission for use
	>of the font in a WOFF container. However, a font’s
	>fsType settings, MUST NOT affect load behavior in
	>user agents and MUST NOT affect whether tools
	>produce a WOFF file from a font.

Why tie things to versions? Why tie it to an fsType field? Why not simply, "any sfnt" font?
There is no predictability in what you are suggesting.
If the standard does not provide guidelines whereby web authors can count on consistent behavior as to how User Agents are going to handle WOFF not only now but in the future, what good is it?

Either WOFF is simply going to ignore embedding bits or it isn't. And that will be perfectly clear in the technical details. 

>This wording would make any future fsType bit assignments
>subject to the same terms, so we might want to make this specific to the
>current table version.

Or, once again, I ask, why not just stay silent and say nothing? Who exactly is it that's clamoring for this "clarication"? Has "orthogonal" become a dirty word?

Regards,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:19 PM
To: www-font@w3.org
Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org; David Berlow
Subject: Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

Revised wording based on comment from David Berlow here
http://www.typophile.com/node/69631/#comment-411286

	
	Web authors are expected to make adequate efforts
	to ensure that the font license corresponds to the
	intended web use. It MUST NOT be assumed that
	document embedding permissions in the font’s OS/2
	table fsType field correspond to permission for use
	of the font in a WOFF container. However, a font’s
	fsType settings, MUST NOT affect load behavior in
	user agents and MUST NOT affect whether tools
	produce a WOFF file from a font.

Tom Phinney's recent concern about OS/2 fsType version remains 
outstanding. This wording would make any future fsType bit assignments 
subject to the same terms, so we might want to make this specific to the 
current table version. I don't think this is likely to become a 
practical concern, since most of us are thinking along David's lines, in 
one way or another, of more exhaustive and precise permissions being 
documented elsewhere in the font, but Tom's right that we should the 
implications for future bits.

JH
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 00:37:43 UTC

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