Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> I guess I'm saying "There's now three web browsers that do so, let's >> not get left behind"... > > Which is reasonable. Again, I'm not saying that @font-face isn't > something desirable. It is. I'm saying that unlike other parts of CSS, > even once the technical issues are resolved there is a nasty legal issue > lurking that would need to be at least carefully thought about. > Probably in consultation with some competent lawyers and possible with > the CSS Working Group.
I don't think the CSSWG has anything to add to the legal discussion at this point and I very, very much want to avoid us getting into that discussion again. I'm sure Microsoft and Adobe would be happy to discuss the issue, and if someone from Mozilla wants to start a dialog with them we can hook them up through W3C/CSSWG contacts. But getting the CSSWG itself involved is imo a very bad idea. As Daniel Glazman says, we are a technical group, we should stick to technical discussions. Starting a fonts DRM discussion in the CSSWG is inviting an ideological flamewar. ~fantasai _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
