Skip to content

[css-fonts] Reference font subsets without privacy leaks #11092

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
svgeesus opened this issue Oct 25, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

[css-fonts] Reference font subsets without privacy leaks #11092

svgeesus opened this issue Oct 25, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
css-fonts-4 Current Work privacy-tracker Group bringing to attention of Privacy, or tracked by the Privacy Group but not needing response.

Comments

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

svgeesus commented Oct 25, 2024

"The union of these ranges defines the set of codepoints for which the corresponding font may be used. User agents must not download or use the font for codepoints outside this set."

Thank you for pointing me at this. To be honest I didn't know this was already in the spec. I agree that, since this is already part of the platform, then my concern is sorta redundant. I am going to change my issue from privacy-needs-resolution to privacy-tracker, so that this issue isn't blocking you all.

That said, two other (non-blocking) suggestions:

  1. I encourage both your group, and the CSS Fonts Module group (if thats not a distinction w/o a difference) to consider whether future versions of both specs could adjust the current behavior, so that page authors could easily reference sub-sets of fonts, w/o the font requests potentially real-time leaking what the user is reading on the page.
  2. Less importantly, as an editorial suggestion comment (maybe more to the CSS Fonts Module group), is that the "CSS Fonts Module 3 (and 4)" text seems to be in a little tension w/ itself. The first paragraph in 4.5 says this is a "hint" (which, i dont know if its a well defined term, but in my casual read suggests some amount of optionality or heuristic), while later says "must not". Not directly relevant to this conversation, but i think rewording that text might be helpful for readers to understand whats intended.

Anywho thanks for walking me through this and helping me understand how this interacts with existing specs. Like i mentioned, i removed the privacy-needs-resolution label so you should be all good to go privacy-review wise

Originally posted by @pes10k in w3c/IFT#207 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
css-fonts-4 Current Work privacy-tracker Group bringing to attention of Privacy, or tracked by the Privacy Group but not needing response.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant