Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts

At 23:52  +0100 5/11/08, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>  - to add a new table with root strings, i.e, a list of sites and
>    pages that are allowed to use the font
>
>I've done some soul-searching on this and reached the conclusion that
>I can live with the first part, but not the second; I don't want web
>resources to have inherent page/site restrictions. It breaks with a
>fundamental principle of the web, that web resources should be
>reusable. Further, it may violate the "fair use" doctrine of copyright
>law. If root strings are accepted for fonts, content providers would
>soon ask for root strings in images and video as well.

Also, it's not clear if they'd 'work' correctly.  Here are two simple examples:

1) When we post new content to our web site, it's 
first 'staged' on internal staging servers, and 
tested.  It is then moved into production.  This 
process relies on URL-neutrality, particularly 
using relative URLs intelligently.  The fonts 
would be served from different servers (staging 
and production) and the root strings might test 
OK and then fail in production etc.

2) When our content is posted, we selectively 
'akamai-ze' it.  That is, some content is allowed 
to flow into the akamai cloud, and the base URLs 
that are published for it now point at akamai. 
Akamai, in turn, knows how to get back to us to 
find the base data that they are providing a 
global distributed cache for.  The Akamai URLs 
and the base URLs are not the same.


I am sure that there are many other problems 
here, at least around caching and so on.  Root 
strings seem to be rather like a 'come from' 
statement 
[<http://www.fortran.com/come_from.html>], (or 
even a 'dont come from', reference needed), and 
analysis has shown that these can be confusing in 
use...
-- 
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 23:05:53 UTC