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

RE: fsType and embedding information

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 02:02:45 +0000
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2148DFD5@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson


> > 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.

EOT was never standardized. I am at a loss to understand why WOFF needs
to clarify anything EOT did or did not do. But to the extent this does
not mention EOT and leaves embedding bits alone for WOFF purposes, I
don't see a problem with it. 
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 02:04:58 UTC

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