- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:49:38 -0400
- To: "Dave Crossland" <dave@lab6.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
I believe we already discussed this and agreed that certain aspects of EOT solution can be implemented in a different way, e.g. utilizing same-origin restriction and CORS technology as Mozilla proposed. The important point is that we seem to agree we need a universally supported web font wrapper that would allow to put "signs and fences" to reduce a risk of font piracy to a level that would be acceptable for font foundries. I believe that as soon as we have this in place, web designers will have access to a vast selection of high-quality fonts. Regards, Vladimir > -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Dave Crossland > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:28 AM > To: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: New work on fonts at W3C > > 2009/6/16 Levantovsky, Vladimir > <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>: > > > > EOT format as it's the only existing web format that offers an > ability to 'put a > > fence with "no trespassing" sign' around a font. > > I'm all for signs and fences to present to users about what their > rights are; the problem is that EOT is an "electric" fence - a DRM > scheme, since it requires web browsers to enforce restrictions on > users - whereas the Ascender proposal doesn't require this of > browsers. > > http://pics.livejournal.com/eideteker/pic/0003bssg
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 15:50:21 UTC