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

Re: fsType and embedding information

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 07:05:47 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniXiL-Ap5Wgmqy6z_hyAlbcYlN6TFY6XkjVJjx@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-font@w3.org
On 19 May 2010 05:03, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>> On 19 May 2010 03:37, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
>>>       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.
>> Create and serve, but what about render? I mean, how does this apply
>> to something like Prince? When Prince "serves" a WOFF, is it
>> considered to be "embedding" the WOFF in a document? Or is it
>> considered to be downloading a WOFF, unwrapping the WOFF to get a OTF,
>> and "embedding" the OTF in a document?
> As I understand it, Prince creates PDF files from HTML and XML, so the
> pretty obvious answer is that they are embedding an unpacked font in a PDF
> and the same embedding bit permissions apply as in any other embedding of
> TTF/OTF fonts in a PDF.


So when I run Chromium or Firefox, click "Print," and select the "PDF
Printer Driver," I am embedding an unpacked font in a PDF document?

And if the unpacked font says "No Document Embedding!" then Chromium
or Firefox or my PDF Printer Driver should fail to run?
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 05:06:46 UTC

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