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

Re: fsType and embedding information

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:37:58 -0700
Message-ID: <4BF340F6.6030405@tiro.com>
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
Christopher Slye wrote:

> John, I understand what you're saying, but I am still unconvinced that any explanation is necessary.

This explanation seems to me very necessary:

	None of the existing embedding bits constitute or
	imply permission to create or serve a WOFF file.
	Web authors should confirm that a font is licensed
	for such use.

And the reason that this explanation is necessary is that the only other 
dedicated web font format to which we can point, EOT, explicitly did 
associate embedding bits with creating and serving web fonts, thereby 
creating a perception that the embedding bits constituted or implied 
such permission.

As I said earlier, I figured the browser makers would appreciate having 
the additional clarification that they're doing the right thing by 
ignoring embedding bits when downloading and unpacking WOFF files. If 
they don't appreciate that, okay we can drop it. And as for the whole 
tool conformance question and conflicting interpretations of embedding 
bit one, I'm more than happy for those to be dropped.

But that one explanation, I do think is necessary because of the 
unfortunate precedence of EOT and its conflating of document embedding 
and web font linking.

Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 01:38:34 UTC

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