Re: New work on fonts at W3C

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Lord <> wrote:

> The bug is that it proposes a "Web-Specific Font Format".

> There is not, nor can there logically be such a format.
> What is to stop libre applications from treating the new
> format as one among several native formats?

I agree, there is nothing to prevent that. That doesn't bother me. If it
doesn't bother Ascender, then it's a non-issue.

3. Gratuitous table renames suffer the same problem as
>   problem (2) - it seems that point (3) of their proposal
>   is just a specific case of point (2).

Indeed. It's about the minimal obfuscation we could have (avoiding EOT's
completely unnecessary checksums). The impact on browser users is zero, the
impact on Web authors and browser developers is minimal --- it doesn't seem
like a problem to support it. Don't forget that we will definitely be
supporting normal TT/OT font files, so people who don't want to deal with
the obfuscation won't have to.

4. Same-origin restrictions as described in the proposal
>   are not CORS but are a DRM mechanism.

I think Ascender clearly intended a default same-origin restriction plus
CORS to satisfy clause 4. I don't think that should be called "DRM". All it
does is let Web authors control over who can use their resources via
hotlinking. Really, that's all. It does not govern copying or usage, and is
not aware of licensing. Web authors may find it a useful tool to help ensure
they comply with font licenses. Technically it's equivalent to Referer
checking, except it's more reliable and much more convenient for authors.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 00:09:13 UTC