Re: WebFonts ready for use

Dave Crossland wrote:
> 2008/4/30 Maciej Stachowiak <>:
>> it would make it difficult for authors to serve a font only licensed for
>> embedding in documents they produce, since the UA may use it for other
>> documents without any deliberate action on the part of either the site or
>> the user.
> I think it is a mistake to use the term "embedding" in connection with
> web-fonts, because it is misleading about how HTTP works; "linking" is
> a much more accurate term.

Embedding is the concept that font vendors use in their licencing.  I 
would suggest it is reasonably safe to assume that any vendor that 
licenced for embedding wouldn't consider deep linking from another site 
to be acceptable.

What the domain whitelisting in EOT is trying to do is to produce 
semantics closer to embedding, when the medium actually physically uses 

(Interestingly of course images in HTML are logically links, but 
designers rely on their behaving, visually, as though they were 
embedded, even if that creates copyright loopholes.)

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 23:32:48 UTC