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

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Chris Fynn <cfynn@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 08:17:10 +0600
Message-ID: <4BF0A726.6000509@gmx.net>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>

John

How many font users are actually going to know what an "OS/2
table fsType field" is and what fsType settings are?

IMO None of this would be of any real use unless written in plain 
language that most users can understand

- Chris

John Hudson wrote:
> 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 02:44:34 UTC

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