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.

Vladimir

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