RE: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

On Monday, November 10, 2008 5:59 AM Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> DRM is not the answer to the font piracy or to any other kind 
> of piracy.

Have I suggested DRM anywhere in my proposal? Please stop screaming
"fire" until you actually see one.

> Again, there's no such protection for any other content 
> including CSS, XML, SVG, JPEG or GIF.

There are plenty of use cases where contents are protected in one way or
another. One would argue that it depends on the inherent reuse value of
a content.

> How many web authors are currently "inadvertently using unauthorized"
> images, CSS or JavaScript? Why do you think that fonts 
> deserve special protection? (I know, I'm repeating myself. 
> Please, I really want to know answer to this question...)

Please don't try to alienate web authors, they are the least of concern
for font vendors (as I have stated in my original email).

> As you said above, there will be a standalong decompressor 
> anyway so why should *every* browser vendor implement/include 
> such decompressor? Does it *really* increase security at all?

Putting *security* issues aside, MTX compressor/decompressor for fonts
isn't conceptually different that JPEG compressor/decompressor for
images - I am not sure what is your objection to compression. 

> The users of *free fonts* should not be hindered by the 
> resctrictions of commercial font vendors. 

Compression is not a restriction and will not hinder the use of free
fonts - it will benefit web developers using them the same way it would
do it for commercial fonts.

> For those users, 
> directly linking to plain TTF file is the easiest and 
> simpliest method. 

Yes, it's as easy as directly using BMP images but no one does it.


Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 15:24:00 UTC