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

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 00:14:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNLxStkgpnmkHfCwaeerWYdecRrWGRQcWzXwzL@mail.gmail.com>
To: rfink@readableweb.com
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com> wrote:
> Friday, May 14, 2010 7:42 PM Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>:
>>Have you actually consulted a lawyer on this, who
>>has advised what you say above?
> Yes!

Fascinating. I guess we have gotten opposite advice, then.

>>That being said, I have indeed read all 59 pages of the LimeWire judgment
> (whew!)
>>and I for one don't see anything in it that would make me think that
>>an application putting in a warning dialog puts the application at
>>increased risk.
> Then we disagree. Was the level of "user education" employed with regard to
> licensing issues not at issue, or was I dreaming?
> But there's no need to get tangles about this because:

Sure, it was. But I don't see how anything in that case makes you
think "zero" is better than "some"... especially when things like the
very existence of this thread makes it clear that folks are aware
there is an issue.

>>neither of us are lawyers,
> You got that right! So why in heck is there language on the negotiating
> table that can be open to differing inferences and interpretations when
> there doesn't need to be anything?

I think having no language at all about embedding bits is a viable
option, and better than most of the other options being proposed.

> Serious question. And I direct it squarely at you because I value your
> intellectual integrity.
> Why does anything - by any stretch - need to be said other than this at the
> very most:
>>      The font embedding permissions set in
>>      the font contained in a WOFF file MUST
>>      NOT affect load behavior in user agents
>>      and MUST NOT affect whether tools
>>      produce a WOFF file from an underlying
>>      font.
> (Although I still don't know what "load" means.)

I think that's a lot more problematic than nothing.

Specifically, it is at least possible that OpenType could add an
fsType bit that purports to dictate whether a WOFF creation tool
should process a font. In that eventuality, it would be seriously
messed up for the WOFF spec to be saying they are not allowed to pay
attention to such a bit.

That's very different from a statement that none of the existing
embedding bits apply to WOFF.



"I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a
hands-free headset."  http://xkcd.com/736/
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 07:14:47 UTC

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