- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:30:17 +0900
- To: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com>, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "W3C Style" <www-style@w3.org>, "3668 FONT" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font@w3.org
> From a font vendor perspective, I'm not sure that it makes a major > difference whether the mechanism is opt-in or opt-out. Again, what is > important is that there be an easy and reliable mechanism that will > constitute reasonable steps by the author to comply with the license. > Indeed, I can imagine licenses specifically stating that the From-Origin > header should be set to 'same', *if* this were a reliable mechanism. But > in order for it to be a reliable mechanism, I'd say that UAs should not > be able to consider it optional. I didn't mean to put much focus on the possibility of making this optional. As it was being brought up, I just wanted to highlight that there are some reasons to argue for it, but I have no particular interest in it. The current draft of Anne's proposal[1], which is the solution Opera prefers, uses MUST when describing how its algorithm should be applied, so we are fine with the mechanism being mandatory. Do you see any reason to prefer the same origin policy over From-Origin? - Florian [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/from-origin/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 07:31:08 UTC