Re: New work on fonts at W3C

On Jun 23, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Ambrose Li wrote:

> On 23/06/2009, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If site A is using site B's images against the wishes of site A,  
>> then it
>> will probably be broken often anyway, because when site B finds out  
>> about
>> it, he will change the names or locations of the files, and replace  
>> the old
>> ones with pictures to embarrass the content thief. People who  
>> frequent sites
>> that are stealing other people's intellectual property should  
>> really expect
>> those sites to have problems.
>
> Why does everyone think that cross-site linking must be "copyright
> violation" and everyone doing it must be a "content thief"? This is
> sickening.
>
> Doesn't anyone here use Google's "View cached version" function?

Sure, and if I don't mind my content (pictures, movies, or fonts I  
create, for instance) being viewable in Google's cached view, then I  
would indicate this in a CORS header (if CORS could work that way).  
There are many who would not want their IP shown in cached view, or  
who would not want outdated information (such as loan rates or legal  
disclosure) shown in cached view. If they are my resources, then I  
should be able to indicate whether or not Google should have the right  
to republish them. In fact, many dynamically-displayed resources are  
currently blocked from displaying anywhere in which the referrer is  
not the same site or on a list of approved sites. A simpler,  
standardized approach to managing this would benefit many.

In the case of JavaScript heavy sites, or sites that use cookies  
extensively, the Google cache page will not necessarily display or  
work the same anyway. And in the case of linked fonts in Firefox 3.5,  
they also will not be shown correctly in Google cache. So having  
something not show up there because the author doesn't want it to  
would not be a tragic loss. It would be a gain. And CORS would be a  
better approach to managing not only who CAN access site-restricted  
content, but also to restrict the sites that are not explicitly allowed.