- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 06:48:21 -0600
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BANLkTimYbT-r4SVGLQLOvtARcTkSSbA20w@mail.gmail.com>
We are reviewing the differences between the two mechanisms, and will respond shortly with an answer. G. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:02:36 +0900, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > There appear to be a number of options the group(s) may consider: >> >> - leave WOFF and CSS3-FONTS as is with respect to same-origin >> requirements, and fail to resolve a formal objection from Samsung, >> leaving >> it to W3C management to (eventually) determine a conclusion; >> - move same-origin requirements from WOFF and CSS3-FONTS to a third >> "WebFonts Conformance Specification"; >> - move same-origin requirements from WOFF and CSS3-FONTS to HTML5 or >> another definition of a UA that actually performs access functions; >> - remove same-origin requirements from WOFF and CSS3-FONTS, and leave >> in their place a recommendation that UA specifications or other >> specifications that perform access functions using WOFF and/or >> CSS3-FONTS consider and resolve access issues in the context of >> those other specifications; one way of doing this would be to adopt >> the alternative text I provided in an >> earlier message "If a user agent that makes normative use of this >> specification includes a same-origin policy, then that policy, and the >> mechanisms it uses to enforce that policy should apply to the loading >> of fonts via the @font-face mechanism."; >> - simply remove the same-origin requirements and take no further >> action; >> > > If we take the same origin requirements out of the WOFF and CSS3-FONTS > spec, and agree to put them into another document. Do you have any opinion > on whether the policy to be specified in this other document should be the > same origin policy, or rather From-Origin[1]? We (Opera) would prefer the > later, and as HÃ¥kon has pointed out, we agree it is better to have it in a > separate document. > > - Florian > > [1] Cross-Origin Resource Embedding Restrictions, aka From-Origin > ED: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-**origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.**html<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html> > Blog: http://annevankesteren.nl/**2011/02/from-origin<http://annevankesteren.nl/2011/02/from-origin> >
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 12:49:15 UTC