- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:42:41 +0200
- To: Steve Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
Also sprach Steve Zilles:
> The DRM bits are not "protection measures"; they are usage information. It
> tis the User Agents that have an obligation to implement correct usage so
> that the user of the UA does not have to concern himself with the rules and
> can count on his UA to do the right thing for him.
To clarify: do you refer to the embedding bits of TrueType/OpenType
[1] as DRM? The way I understand the term "DRM", it should have an
"active" component, one that shuts off access when it smells something
abnormal.
> Having the CSS specification require that UA's implement detection of and
> correct respect for the DRM information is a proper and correct function of
> the specification.
The CSS specification can not and should not require support for any
specific formats. Further, CSS cannot make rules about how to
interpret other formats. CSS cannot demand support for JPEG and
certainly cannot specify how to interpret the EXIF bits in JPEG. So,
while I'd personally insist that Opera respects the embedding bits of
Truetype, the CSS specification cannot do so. This is the job of the
TrueType specification [1].
[1] that is, the fsType field in the OS/2 table, as described at
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/os2.htm
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2006 09:42:33 UTC