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

Glenn, the meaning of communication is up to its recipients. If I get it all wrong so consistently, either I am a total moron and you should have ignored me some time ago (And, I hope, others would have pointed it out by now). At the other end of the spectrum, maybe you do suck at conveying your intent on this specific topic, which would explain the general logjam. In the spirit of keeping trying, I’ll answer your comments in order.

Since a formal objection can block publication, telling a group of implementors you will formally object unless X is addressed to your satisfaction is neither the most constructive way to introduce yourself nor does it send an obvious signal of full support for a group whose members do not all know you.

Intellectual property and content protection are not goals for WOFF or css3-fonts; if it were then same-origin restrictions would hardly fit the bill since anything available through a URL can be downloaded and copied. It is true that a same-origin default does align with the vast majority of commercial EULAs but that is certainly not the only reason for this behavior. Others have already pointed to Roc’s blog post here for context: To be perfectly clear, DRM is a very explicit and most definite non-goal here.

It’s good that you’re not fixated on a particular objective but, fwiw, that is the exact perception you have created i.e. you are here to achieve your own ends and screw what others think. First, by appearing to show up for the purpose of formally objecting, as pointed out above. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a relative stranger to get a different reception from as strong a signal as a FO vs. a regular, known contributor. Second, by using the word compromise a lot and never appearing to try finding one. Compromise starts with making a proposal but it doesn’t end there. It requires listening to feedback, addressing that feedback, adjusting the proposal iteratively through a two-way conversation. Instead, you made a proposal, almost immediately labeled it a compromise and generally stuck to it not only in the face of genuine issues but in the absence of any support for it from anyone else. Thus the message you sent was that your first proposal was also your final one i.e. ‘take it or leave it’. The overall substance and tone of your position being that you will not give anything away: either we bend, or you object.

As roc noted, no WD implementation can be guaranteed to conform to a future draft, let alone the eventual REC. All WD implementations are explicitly deemed experimental, as noted several times. It’s not a question of document age or how many implementations you’ve shipped and this is very much a central concern here. (At the least, could you accept that it may be *our* concern even if it isn’t yours and make an attempt to address it instead of dismissing it?) The flipside of experimental draft implementations is that there is no obligation on implementors to go patch deployed code when a new WD or even a REC is published. Those implementations released after a given WD or REC should of course aim to conform to the latest version of the spec. It is thus most likely that whatever css3-fonts implementation Samsung has fielded – or will field tomorrow – will be non-conformant by the time css3-fonts reaches REC. This has been, is and will remain true for all implementors across the vast majority of CSS modules the WG works on. By so strongly objecting to what the rest of us consider a necessary and positive fact of standard life you should not be surprised if we conclude you aim to block progress. However unreasonably I expressed this conclusion, it doesn’t make the conclusion itself crazy given the evidence.

From: Glenn Adams []
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:13 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: John Hudson; Levantovsky, Vladimir;; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard;;; Martin J.
Subject: 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;


On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Sylvain Galineau <<>> 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<> ? Not everyone in the latter follows the Fonts WG mailing list. Thank you.
From:<> [<>] On Behalf Of Glenn Adams
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:18 PM

To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: John Hudson; Levantovsky, Vladimir;<>; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard;<>;<>; Martin J.
Subject: Re: css3-fonts: should not dictate usage policy with respect to origin


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.


On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau <<>> 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 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 [<>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:26 AM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: John Hudson; Levantovsky, Vladimir;<>; StyleBeyondthePunchedCard;<>;<>; 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 <<>> 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<> of a downloadable Web font is equal to the origin<> of the absolute URL<> used to obtain the font (after any redirects). [CSSFONTS]<>
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.


Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 02:14:05 UTC