On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> 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. Rob -- "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 53:5-6]
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 00:09:13 UTC