Re: suggested WOFF changes

John Daggett <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.fonts
Message-ID <1773666623.524481.1277239285766.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
Vlad wrote:

> > > User Agents MUST NOT permanently install fonts delivered in a WOFF
> > > format as system resident fonts, and SHOULD only use downloaded
> > > fonts to render the content of a webpage that WOFF resources are
> > > associated with.
> > 
> > This is redundant, the CSS3 Fonts specification already defines this
> > behavior for *all* font types, not just WOFF [2].  See section 4.1:
> > 
> >   "Downloaded fonts are only available to documents that reference
> >   them, they must not be made available to other applications or other
> >   documents."
> > 
> > The primary reason for this is security, the content of a given page
> > should not influence content of a different page unless the resources
> > are explicitly shared (i.e. the pages link to the same resource).
> 
> I found an interesting discussion where WOFF was mentioned [1], and it
> appears that the UA behavior/requirements specified by CSS spec with
> regard to downloadable fonts may not be supported by some browsers. In
> light of this discussion: taking into account that implementers expect
> to see any relevant requirements clearly mentioned in the spec and that
> the WOFF spec is so far the only web font specification developed by W3C
> - I think it's worth to mention explicitly what the expected UA behavior
> must be when consuming WOFF resource, and appending the proposed text to
> the second paragraph of the Introduction section seems to be logical and
> appropriate.
> 
> I don’t think it would be a problem reiterating what CSS spec already
> says (and we can also make a reference to CSS spec here to connect the
> dots).

I'm assuming the conversation here is the one below.  I don't think what
you say follows at all from that conversation, they're talking about
where in the software stack to implement a WOFF handler, not about
browser behavior.  What correct user agent behavior is violated here?

I think the concern here is that *if* Apple makes WOFF a system-level
font format that it will be possible to drop WOFF fonts into a font
folder and use them as normal system fonts.  That doesn't make much
sense to me, no one is producing fonts for this purpose and Apple
already has a variety of font packaging mechanisms better suited for
platform font use.  What Maciej is saying is that it may make more sense
to implement WOFF support in a system-level API.

Duplicating wording across specs means you always need to keep it in
sync and that you put it in the correct context.  I think it's a much
better idea to reference wording in the CSS spec and make changes there
if you feel there's something missing.

Regards,

John Daggett

http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20100303#l-194

<paul_irish> othermaciej: earlier on the WOFF topic.. i just wanted to clarify.. you said it'd be easier to just make woff fonts installable on mac os, right?
<othermaciej> paul_irish: it is simpler for us to treat them like any other font than to try to make the font system only handle them for WebKit
<paul_irish> roger that. i'm just kinda wtf'ing because i thought the intention of the woff format was to avoid a trivial-to-install scenario
<othermaciej> I'm sure that is some people's intent, I don't think there is any such requirement in the spec though
<paul_irish> hehe. this is true. :)
<paul_irish> othermaciej: is it okay if i mention this to some webfont friends of mine?
<othermaciej> paul_irish: then it might sounds like I am making a commitment about future Apple products, which I definitely am not
<othermaciej> we haven't even started on implementing WOFF yet
<paul_irish> gotcha.
<paul_irish> my expectation is that people wont be very pleased. :)
<othermaciej> I can't even commit to implementing it at all ever
<paul_irish> k. thanks much.
<othermaciej> if we do, then I am not sure we have huge motive to make such fonts hard to install
<othermaciej> if we end up participating in the WG then we may be able to discuss our plans
<othermaciej> in more specifics
<othermaciej> if we have plans by then
<paul_irish> aye
<othermaciej> I expect font people are most worried about piracy on Windows
<othermaciej> Windows is the main platform where piracy happens, from what I hear
<othermaciej> at least for other media
<paul_irish> i pirate on mac all the time. :)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.