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

Re: suggested WOFF changes

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font <www-font@w3.org>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Message-ID: <1773666623.524481.1277239285766.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>

Vlad wrote:

> > > User Agents MUST NOT permanently install fonts delivered in a WOFF
> > > format as system resident fonts, and SHOULD only use downloaded
> > > fonts to render the content of a webpage that WOFF resources are
> > > associated with.
> > 
> > This is redundant, the CSS3 Fonts specification already defines this
> > behavior for *all* font types, not just WOFF [2].  See section 4.1:
> > 
> >   "Downloaded fonts are only available to documents that reference
> >   them, they must not be made available to other applications or other
> >   documents."
> > 
> > The primary reason for this is security, the content of a given page
> > should not influence content of a different page unless the resources
> > are explicitly shared (i.e. the pages link to the same resource).
> 
> I found an interesting discussion where WOFF was mentioned [1], and it
> appears that the UA behavior/requirements specified by CSS spec with
> regard to downloadable fonts may not be supported by some browsers. In
> light of this discussion: taking into account that implementers expect
> to see any relevant requirements clearly mentioned in the spec and that
> the WOFF spec is so far the only web font specification developed by W3C
> - I think it's worth to mention explicitly what the expected UA behavior
> must be when consuming WOFF resource, and appending the proposed text to
> the second paragraph of the Introduction section seems to be logical and
> appropriate.
> 
> I don’t think it would be a problem reiterating what CSS spec already
> says (and we can also make a reference to CSS spec here to connect the
> dots).

I'm assuming the conversation here is the one below.  I don't think what
you say follows at all from that conversation, they're talking about
where in the software stack to implement a WOFF handler, not about
browser behavior.  What correct user agent behavior is violated here?

I think the concern here is that *if* Apple makes WOFF a system-level
font format that it will be possible to drop WOFF fonts into a font
folder and use them as normal system fonts.  That doesn't make much
sense to me, no one is producing fonts for this purpose and Apple
already has a variety of font packaging mechanisms better suited for
platform font use.  What Maciej is saying is that it may make more sense
to implement WOFF support in a system-level API.

Duplicating wording across specs means you always need to keep it in
sync and that you put it in the correct context.  I think it's a much
better idea to reference wording in the CSS spec and make changes there
if you feel there's something missing.

Regards,

John Daggett

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100303#l-194

<paul_irish> othermaciej: earlier on the WOFF topic.. i just wanted to clarify.. you said it'd be easier to just make woff fonts installable on mac os, right?
<othermaciej> paul_irish: it is simpler for us to treat them like any other font than to try to make the font system only handle them for WebKit
<paul_irish> roger that. i'm just kinda wtf'ing because i thought the intention of the woff format was to avoid a trivial-to-install scenario
<othermaciej> I'm sure that is some people's intent, I don't think there is any such requirement in the spec though
<paul_irish> hehe. this is true. :)
<paul_irish> othermaciej: is it okay if i mention this to some webfont friends of mine?
<othermaciej> paul_irish: then it might sounds like I am making a commitment about future Apple products, which I definitely am not
<othermaciej> we haven't even started on implementing WOFF yet
<paul_irish> gotcha.
<paul_irish> my expectation is that people wont be very pleased. :)
<othermaciej> I can't even commit to implementing it at all ever
<paul_irish> k. thanks much.
<othermaciej> if we do, then I am not sure we have huge motive to make such fonts hard to install
<othermaciej> if we end up participating in the WG then we may be able to discuss our plans
<othermaciej> in more specifics
<othermaciej> if we have plans by then
<paul_irish> aye
<othermaciej> I expect font people are most worried about piracy on Windows
<othermaciej> Windows is the main platform where piracy happens, from what I hear
<othermaciej> at least for other media
<paul_irish> i pirate on mac all the time. :)
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 20:42:00 UTC

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