- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:37:59 -0800
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Håkon Lie wrote: > 1) the same-site restrictions Mozilla has proposed. That is, browsers > would only allow a certain font to be used on pages on the same site, > unless an HTTP header (Access-Control-Allow-Origin) says otherwise. > > 2) a light-weight obfuscation/compression scheme. This could either > be XOR-ing a few bits in a strategic place to hide the font to common > systems (obfuscation), or introducing a targeted compression scheme. > The compression should be based on an algorithm with no known claims. > This could be MTX, but it currently seems safer to reuse gzip. The > compression would be applied selectively to chunks inside the file. > (If gzip is applied to the whole file, it is likely to be unzipped > automatically at the HTTP level.) > > 3) linking to standard TTF/OTF files (as Safari/Mozilla/Opera/Prince > has implented) > > Combined, the first two of these seem to address Adobe's requirements, > as expressed by Thomas Phinney: > > > We just want the original completely unprotected font converted to > > a marginally-more-protected web font *by the end user we licensed > > the font to*, prior to them sticking said font on a web server. Yes, that element could be covered by (2). Losing the root string element is still a concern, but it's possible that (1) will be a barely-good-enough solution from an Adobe perspective. I hope to shop this around internally and see if legal, marketing and other folks are okay with this proposal. Personally, I am still considering and pondering.... Regards, T
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 20:38:47 UTC