On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir < Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > > > *From:* rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert > O'Callahan > * > * > > > Referer checking is pretty hard to deploy. I don't think it's viable as a > mass-market solution. We're trying to make Web fonts easier to deploy than > EOT, not harder. > > But isn’t it similar to what other solutions like sIFR and Flash are doing? > (http://wiki.novemberborn.net/sifr/Protecting+Commercial+Fonts) > No. sIFR embeds code in the .swf so the hostname of the document is checked on the client. Actually, from a very pragmatic point of view, the support for > “root-string-less” EOT (version 1.0 only) in all browsers could be both the > immediate and ‘long-run’ solution you are talking about. It would satisfy > users who use outdated or newer versions of IE and, at the same time, would > immediately give web authors full control using any fonts they like. > > > EOT has gratuitous complexity, like pointless checksumming against > rootstring manipulation. Plus there is the possibility of rootstrings being > present and the fact that some browsers will process them and others won't, > which will always be hurting interop. We can do better. > > If we stick with EOT version 1.0 – there are no root strings to worry > about. Consider them (and everything else related to root strings) as > undefined byte padding. > Undefined byte padding in the header is itself gratuitious complexity, albeit minimal. And IE would still process that data, and other browsers won't, which would sow confusion and bugs. 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 Sunday, 28 June 2009 23:17:30 UTC