- From: Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:06:55 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.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" <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > A simple use case: > > 1. a font server in the cloud wishes to provide fonts for reference by > arbitrary authors without restrictions on access; > 2. a web page author creates a page that references that font and places the > page on a server in a different domain; > 3. the web page author expects that a UA will download the font and use it; > 4. the web page author does not expect to have to configure its server to > include the entity headers to relax same-origin restrictions; In this scenario, the author doesn't have to do anything. The font server has to send the right header, and it's trivial to do so. The author's page will then "just work". The only time an author has to worry about something like this is if the author is, themself, hosting both the font and the page, and doing so on separate servers. If this is the case, they almost certainly have access to at least basic server configuration tools, and can send the correct header (it's a one-line static header for this scenario). > I'm sorry, but Samsung cannot agree with this approach, and will retain the formal objection unless the polarity is inverted. As previously noted, the WG has already resolved on this matter, and multiple browsers implement SOR for @font-face resources. Your formal objection is noted, but I doubt the WG will change its resolution. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 22:07:30 UTC