W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

RE: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:04:51 +0000
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "W3C Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178292CF494@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Christoph Päper:] 
> This is what your concerns sound like to me: “We adhere to commercial font
> vendor demands, whether they’re sound or not. This results in
> complications for authors and users which don’t happen with competing
> browsers. To level the field, we want to require everyone to follow those
> restrictions. To make that more probable, we want the requirement in a
> specification that the others want to comply to anyway.”

With that many layers of re-interpretation it's not surprising you disagree 
but at least I can place most of the blame on you :) Suffice is to say that 
the topic here was not: should these requests be same-origin by default ? 
The question is: assuming they are, where should it be defined ? None of 
what you're 'hearing' addresses this. 

Fwiw what I'm hearing is 'Arguing against this default behavior is hard so 
I'll use procedural and architectural arguments to block it from that document
so that I don't have to argue the case on its merits or lack thereof'. If you 
believe that is the wrong behavior for the src descriptor then please start a 
thread to discuss why. We can resolve which spec requires it separately. (I was
only discussing the latter)

> > If you don't see the merits of making sure any two browsers interpret
> and apply the same @font-face rule in a compatible manner then none of
> this conversation has any purpose.
> I do, of course, see the benefit as far as the CSS feature is concerned.
> When a user agent fails to fetch a resource because it voluntarily follows
> optional protocol restrictions – and other browsers succeed because of
> different policy or design decisions – that is about the same as
> implementing a certain transport protocol [version] or not, i.e. HTTP,
> HTTPS, FILE, DATA or what have you. This is clearly outside the scope of a
> styling language.

Since the goal is that this behavior would not be optional for @font-face, your
general point would be moot. And since differences between the implementation 
of this policy can result in different visual results and layouts, it's certainly 
within the scope of styling as far as any user of the feature is concerned.

Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 00:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:02 UTC