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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:53:36 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTimUWN=aVKCy0WMBSqmOVptV+66PTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.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
I believe we could agree to the first, but not to the second. In fact, we
want to make the second to read as:

       UAs MUST NOT, by default, treat webfont resources as
       same origin restricted.

In the absence of an author declaring either a restriction or a relaxation,
we believe the default should be NO restriction.


On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:

> Glenn wrote:
>  I believe Samsung could agree to making an authorial opt-in mechanism a
>> mandatory feature on UAs that access WOFF; however, I believe we will not be
>> able to agree with a policy that requires use of a restrictive opt-out
>> mechanism which by default would prevent access.
> Would this be satisfactory, in terms of a Webfonts Conformance
> Specification (exact wording to be drafted, this is just to capture the
> intent)?
>        UAs MUST respect author header settings restricting
>        or relaxing same origin.
>        UAs SHOULD, by default, treat webfont resources as
>        same origin restricted.
> I think many of us would want to make that second statement a SHOULD rather
> than a MAY, simply to encourage UA makers to give serious thought as to
> whether they have a good reason not to treat webfont resources in this way.
> JH
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 18:54:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:50:02 UTC