Re: font proposal bogosities

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> 1. A requirement that a browser simply
>   decide to not render with a given font
>   has the fatal flaw that it contributes
>   nothing at all to interoperability.

Following a requirement contributes to interoperability if and only if
other browsers follow it too.  This applies to rendering content, or
not rendering it, or anything else.

>   Consider a hypothetical world in which EOT
>   is Recommended and UAs "MUST" not render if
>   the root string is mis-matched.
>   In that world, consider a browser which,
>   nevertheless, renders the font in such a circumstance.
>   Interoperability is not broken.

Presenting content that other browsers refuse to present means that
users of different browsers will see different content -- the
definition of non-interoperability.  Just look at things like ActiveX
that are browser- or platform-specific.

>   Indeed, refusing to render a font in cases
>   like that is a bug:  programs can not accurately
>   decide whether or not the user has the legal right
>   to render with the font.

Why is that relevant?  Nobody claims that the browser knows about
legal rights.  It can follow the specification regardless.  Is it also
a bug if the browser is willing to display the provided license info
to the user, even if that info is wrong?

>   And that bug is a bad bug: it can present a
>   threat to life and limb when a life critical
>   resource goes un-rendered in a time of desparate
>   need.

You're suggesting that root strings will endanger people's lives?  I'm
not sure if I'm reading you here correctly.

Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 20:34:47 UTC