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

RE: fsType and embedding information

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 15:42:31 -0400
To: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003001caf78b$6c3b7070$44b25150$@com>
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:38 PM John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>:


	>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

John,

This clarifies nothing for me as a web author.

>None of the existing embedding bits
Embedding bits that exist where?

>constitute or imply permission to create or serve a WOFF file
Does that mean they might imply *impermission* to create or serve a WOFF
file?

There seems to be a common consensus that the embedding bits have nothing to
with creating a WOFF file and yet once again, here we have a connection
being made between embedding bits and creating a WOFF file.
Unless you want UAs and authoring tools to enforce the embedding bits - a
notion which seems to have been collectively rejected - embedding bits don't
imply *anything* other than their own existence.

I also fail to see how EOT makes any sort of explanation "necessary". How
exactly is it that one thing leads to the other? EOT is EOT. WOFF is WOFF.
TTF is TTF.
Has anybody expressed confusion about this? Or are you simply anticipating
that such will occur? Seems like a stretch, frankly.

I would assume that if web authors are capable - as you seem to believe they
are - of "confirming" that a font is licensed for a particular usage, they
would likewise be capable of discerning the difference between an EOT file
and a WOFF file. The license controls, so if the license is clear about EOT
and WOFF, not only is there no necessity, there isn't even a problem.

This new variation takes us down the same ambiguous road, yet again.

Regards,

Rich


	"Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can't
stand it. I been there before."

							- From "The
Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 19:43:00 UTC

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