- From: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:48:29 +0000
- To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
d.crossland@gmail.com [Dave Crossland] wrote: >http://www.doubletwist.com > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5133754.stm Thanks for the references. >> but in general, >> I’d say “DRM” is not something I’m a particular fan of - proper expression >> of licensing intent, and the unlocking of commercially-produced font >> licenses for use with web content, IS. > >Are you saying that IE would implement a non-DRM web font format? I don't speak for IE. I should be clearer, though - I think full expression of "your digital rights" in a web font format is a good idea (in fact, I think it's a necessity, and that's where .ttf/.otf falls down). I think attempts to lock files down to one vendor, or make the file format "uncrackable" (ha) are a bad idea. "Obfuscation" is somewhat of a red herring - it's in EOT presumably because it made font vendors happy enough to allow the usage. It's not anything like a real attempt at security, but it is a signpost. I don't think the bulk of users - particularly users, not just content developers - will not be aware that TTF files might have additional rights to them, and they're not supposed to just copy the files from their internet cache to their Windows/Fonts directory. (After all, all the other files in there say they're copyrighted too, right?) I think TTF/OTF on the web is akin to saying you have to put the bits to Photoshop up on the web in order for anyone to view images created with it. -Chris
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 03:49:11 UTC