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

Well Sylvain, you are at least consistent in mis-attributing incorrect
intentions to the position I represent. To be clear:

   - Samsung has no interest in blocking the work of the WG, and fully
   supports the group's work;
   - Samsung has no interest in preventing font authors or font providers
   from protecting access to their intellectual property; we note there are
   various ways of achieving content protection and digital rights management;
   - Samsung is not fixated on a specific result from the group, and is
   willing to consider any reasonable option that addresses our concern;
   - Samsung believes the issue is whether an existing implementation of
   @font-face that does not employ same origin can claim conformance to a
   final, published REC that wishes to apply the same origin mandate to all
   implementations, whether new or old; the issue of whether such an old
   implementation is "experimental" or merely "early" is unrelated to our
   concern, since it is desirable to (finally) have a complete and final
   specification for @font-face that can be referenced by industry compliance
   testing and compliance certification processes;
   - if the group can find a way to effectively address this concern, then
   we will be happy to remove our objection;


G.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  Well, if we have fallen into ad-hominem – and your opening paragraph
> seems to indicate we have indeed - then I am confident the sum of all your
> positive and constructive contributions to this WG will prove you to be the
> innocent victim of my unfairness. ****
>
> ** **
>
> “Unless I observe a change in position” In other words, unless the group
> does what you want you will take action to block progress of their work.
> Given that you’ve made a single proposal and essentially ignored all
> substantive questions or issues that were raised, should you be surprised by
> the lack of progress ? You aim to force a group to comply with your demand
> for no other reason that you’ll formally object if it doesn’t. I give you
> credit for clarity, at least: you don’t waste any time pretending to care
> about anything or anyone else. It’s certainly one way to participate in the
> standard process but please, let’s at least have the decency to not act
> bothered when it causes some friction, as if formal objections never caused
> any heated exchanges. (Although the heated disagreements usually lead to the
> FO, not the other way around, so maybe this constitutes innovation).****
>
> ** **
>
> As a new draft would not force any existing implementations to support
> same-origin restrictions, your objection remains without basis. Same-origin
> support would only be required for a new implementation that also wants to
> conform with the latest draft.…until the next draft makes it non-conformant
> in some other way. Since working draft implementations are experimental,
> that is expected and normal. (At least for active CSSWG members and
> implementors).****
>
> ** **
>
> Last, since css3-fonts is under the CSSWG charter may I suggest your
> register your objection through the CSSWG mailing list at www-style@w3.org? Not everyone in the latter follows the Fonts WG mailing list. Thank you.
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Glenn Adams
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:18 PM
>
> *To:* Sylvain Galineau
> *Cc:* John Hudson; Levantovsky, Vladimir; liam@w3.org;
> StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org;
> Martin J.
> *Subject:* Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to
> origin****
>
>  ** **
>
> Sylvain,****
>
> ** **
>
> This thread appears to be spiraling into ad hominem. It is clear that you
> believe yourself the self-appointed spokesman for the entire web in these
> matters, that you believe you can read my mind and announce my intentions,
> and that you must have the last word no matter what. It is also clear that
> you are not interested in considering any form of compromise to accommodate
> our position.****
>
> ** **
>
> It would be pointless to respond further, so, unless I observe a change in
> position, I will maintain Samsung's objection to mandating same-orign
> requirements in css3-fonts and/or woff for UAs that do not otherwise
> implement same origin access controls.****
>
> ** **
>
> Glenn****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> My bad for taking a point you made earlier and extrapolating from that css3-fonts reference (“I would note, however, that as presently defined, HTML5 does require same-origin on web font resource access along with other resource types.” in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0668.html). But since HTML5 does **not** define any origin policy for fonts and you argue that is where it should be interoperably defined, how is that going to happen without raising the issue with the HTML WG ? As the spec is heading for Last Call it would seem important to raise the issue soon. (Although a formal objection would not indeed seem necessary if HTML5 does not require this, despite your original claim). ****
>
>  ****
>
> Given that your sole contribution to this mailing list and WG has been to
> show up to throw a sudden formal objection by making a series of incoherent
> and self-contradictory arguments – as if to see which one could stick,
> really - given that you are actively opposed to the consensus and goals of
> this WG, given that you haven’t even once bothered to show interest about
> the impact of your approach on the WG’s work, on other members, on the web,
> web authors or users, you have precious few grounds to expect the position
> you represent to be welcomed as a positive and meaningful contribution. In
> addition, given that you have persistently evaded or ignored others on those
> issues *they* care about, given that I have no concrete reason to believe
> as of yet that your goal is to contribute in a manner that is meaningful and
> positive for the work of the group, I have been as civil as I feel justified
> under the circumstances. Were you expecting a thank you note ?****
>
> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:26 AM
> *To:* Sylvain Galineau
> *Cc:* John Hudson; Levantovsky, Vladimir; liam@w3.org;
> StyleBeyondthePunchedCard; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org; www-font@w3.org;
> Martin J.
> *Subject:* Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to
> origin****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
> wrote:****
>
> In any case, I assume you will file a formal objection with all three WGs
> concerned. As HTML5 currently depends on css3-fonts to define this behavior
> and you clearly believe that to be incorrect, you will also object and
> demand that they define this behavior as part of HTML5, right ?****
>
>  ****
>
> Again, you are wrong. HTML5 only refers to css3-fonts once, in the
> following:****
>
>  ****
>
> *For fonts*****
>
> The origin <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin> of a
> downloadable Web font is equal to the origin<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#origin> of
> the absolute URL <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#absolute-url> used
> to obtain the font (after any redirects). [CSSFONTS]<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#refsCSSFONTS>
> ****
>
> This says nothing about using css3-fonts to define same origin behavior.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> You know Slyvain, I don't know you, but I have not impugned your knowledge
> or reasonableness in this thread. On the other hand, every contribution of
> yours to this thread has been expressed to one degree or another in an
> ironic and frankly, a contemptuous tone. You should try being civil for a
> change.****
>
>  ****
>
> G.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>