- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:33:04 +0100
- To: "David Woolley" <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
2008/5/1 David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>: > > Patrick Garies wrote: >> >> This could be dealt with by adding a shareability flag and/or domain >> white‐listing mechanism to CSS3 Web Fonts that could prevent a Web font from >> being shared indirectly. > > That's what EOT fonts already do, and it is that model that people are > rejecting in this thread. A > EOT basically is a domain whitelisting wrapper. I think it is dramatically more than that; because of the encryption, EOT is an "effective technological measure" under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures. This prohibits its implementation in free software web browsers, and therefore must be rejected. Webservers already have a mechanism for domain whitelisting of images to deter deep-linking them - by checking that the HTTP Referrer headers match the domain names they serve pages from. This can obviously work just the same way for domain whitelisting of fonts. -- Regards, Dave
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 09:33:41 UTC