Re: [css3-webfonts] Downloaded fonts should not...

Ambrose Li wrote:
>  IMHO these are still different. When you cache, you likely assume
>  that - you have a cache limit, and - cached things will expire
>  automatically (even if there is no explicit cache limit)
>
>  If you "permanently install a font by the UA", - there is no explicit
>  "install" limit - "permanent" fonts are not expected to expire
>  without explicit user intervention
>
>  Unless the standard will specify otherwise, this will differ from
>  saving images by requiring no user consent on the save, and differ
>  from caching by requiring explicit user consent on the expiry. Thus
>  installed fonts wil be much more likely than either saved images or
>  cached content to accumulate on the user's hard drive.

Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I thought that caching was meant by 
“permanent” where the opposite would be no caching (i.e., “temporary”). 
I don’t think that anyone suggested that Web sites would be able to save 
font files indefinitely and in a manner outside of the UA’s control to a 
user’s hard drive such that users are forced to manually remove those files.

>  I agree completely. IMHO downloadable fonts is completely against the
>  spirit of CSS.

Apparently, you don’t, since you completely misinterpreted what I said. 
I am /for/ downloading fonts through CSS if, by “downloadable”, you mean 
that font files may be cached on a user’s system. I agree with any ideas 
that fonts obtained through CSS should not be installed on the operating 
system for use with other applications or in the UA for cross‐domain 
applications.

I think that licensing, copyright, or other IP issues are outside of the 
scope of CSS work.

— Patrick Garies

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 05:16:35 UTC