W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [css3-fonts] wording of font fetching algorithm

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:55:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78jHeGddd3s9XB=6LrWP_zm6For7jS1EMS=Z1m+czGSXVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:31 AM, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com> wrote:
> We've had a *lot* of discussion of this section, the fact that fonts
> are basically same-origin restricted with CORS to relax is simply a
> way of emphasizing what the definition of "potentially CORS-enabled
> fetch method" with "Anonymous" mode implies.  Superfluous, maybe, but
> I don't see why you would label this as "wrong".  I think it's
> important to keep the wording explicit here, given all the
> back-and-forth about this.

I'm saying it's confusing. Having it discussed a lot does not make the
wording any clearer. And the wording is vastly different from anywhere
else in the platform where we do something similar, e.g. with <track>
elements. Nowhere do we make it this difficult to read that all that
is required is that fonts are fetched using CORS.

> So you're saying the examples are wrong because the loading would be
> allowed if the CORS headers in the response allow it?  I don't think
> "fonts aren't loaded" implies that requests aren't issued.

That seems way too subtle.

> I guess I don't agree with removing all the same-origin restriction
> wording but I'm fine with restructuring the wording to say that it's
> simply what's implied by the fetch algorithm with the given parameters
> and fix up whatever imprecision exists in the current wording.

I think the minimum you'd have to do is remove all the normative
keywords from the sentences that are not key (and maybe mark them up
appropriately so they show up as a note). And the only sentence that
is key is the one I gave you. Still seems like it would cause
unwarranted confusion, but at least if you ignore the non-normative
bits it would be crystal clear.

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2013 10:55:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC