Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Dim 5 mai 2013 12:30, Alec Leamas a écrit : On 05/05/2013 11:40 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Are you sure it works well in IE8 at all? Because there are lots of other reasons a modern web site will fail in old ie versions Double checking... and you're right, openerp only supports IE 9+. Which means that I could indeed go for using ttf/otf only. Other folks might have interest in this, don't know, but as fas as I am concerned this resolves some loose ends. I'm still not convinced that it makes sense to package a font like zocial like a regular desktop font (leaving legal issues aside here). Why not? People use all kind of symbol fonts in presentations and other documents (they *love* their symbol fonts, that was a major driver for dejavu adoption). As long as the font is technically sane and you've been careful enough to assign it a low priority in fontconfig there is no problem Don't forget, that browsers also use system fonts, so if you don't install the fonts in a standard place you're forcing all your Fedora web clients to download it dynamically from the web site. There is also the case when a package contains both a webfont and a desktop font (with different ttf files). Something like a /usr/share/fonts/webfonts for fonts packaged solely as a web static resource might possibly be a solution, I guess (?) Well as we've established there: 1. the only useful webfont format is eot (to reach users of old ie versions, all major browsers except ie are easily upgradable and support normal opentype fonts and there is no restriction on using opentype for floss fonts) 2. it's only useful for the very narrow range of web applications that use bleeding-edge html5 tricks like webfonts but still work with the braindamaged web engines included in ie 9 So if you wanted to do webfonts, the correct way would be to define a filesystem root such as /usr/share/eot-fonts (not a /usr/share/fonts/ subdirectory, that would pollute fontconfig space) But I doubt the intersection of fedora packages, large ie 9 population, html5-webapp, oldie-compatible-webapp amounts to much. So why bother. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 05/03/2013 09:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Ven 3 mai 2013 21:06, Alec Leamas a écrit : Still hesitating a here: if upstream has decided to support the widest possible set of browsers (including IE): should we really just drop the formats required by IE? From a user perspective, I don't really follow this although I do understand your line of reasoning. Here is the current status of @font-face ttf/otf support in browsers: http://caniuse.com/ttf Normal opentype files work in the latest versions of all browsers (except opera mini :p) Adding special webfont formats is not worth the pain, and anyway the main use would be old ie versions, that require eot which is not a really open format. This seems to mean that we force web applications to exclude IE version 8 (and older) clients. As this seems to be a widely used IE version today, is this really the way to go? In my specific case openerp7, a business server application often used in company environments, the IE8- share is probably larger than average. It's certainly the most common client used at many sites. The argument that the format is non-open: is this really a blocker? [cut] --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 2013-05-05 10:19 (GMT+0200) Alec Leamas composed: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Here is the current status of @font-face ttf/otf support in browsers: http://caniuse.com/ttf ... This seems to mean that we force web applications to exclude IE version 8 (and older) clients. As this seems to be a widely used IE version today... Note that the current IE version is 8 for WinXP users. Minimum OS version for IE9+ is Vista, which explains the seeming popularity of IE8. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Dim 5 mai 2013 10:19, Alec Leamas a écrit : This seems to mean that we force web applications to exclude IE version 8 (and older) clients. As this seems to be a widely used IE version today, is this really the way to go? It seems to be a case of Fedora being first and Microsoft being last :p In my specific case openerp7, a business server application often used in company environments, the IE8- share is probably larger than average. It's certainly the most common client used at many sites. Are you sure it works well in IE8 at all? Because there are lots of other reasons a modern web site will fail in old ie versions The argument that the format is non-open: is this really a blocker? Generally speaking, it's a PITA to ship fonts in multiple formats, you're never quite sure they are properly synchronized and that a bug does not lurk in a specific implementation, and it's a space waster. I guess that for the specific case of ie-only eot fonts it could be done (woff is cleaner but does not gain you significant browser coverage compared to otf/ttf). However that would require : 1. generating eot fonts ourselves from the base fonts using eot-tools 2. defining where they are put on the filesystem (probably not in /usr/share/fonts since no linux app that I know can use them) 3. defining the naming of eot (sub)packages 4. adjusting guidelines, documenting on the wiki and getting them FPC-approved I was sort of hopping the problem would go away with adoption of direct opentype support in all browsers, but if you want to do the work, be my guest :) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Dim 5 mai 2013 06:40, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit : On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: I think spot will agree there is no way we'll ever ship a font consisting of company logos, it's trademark hell We ship *lots* of trademarked logos. In Firefox alone there are trademarked logos from Mozilla, Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, Microsoft, eBay, and Twitter. As long as we're complying with the trademark guidelines for them, it shouldn't be a problem. There is a difference between sparse logo use in Firefox (which is almost sure to have been audited to hell Mozilla-side) and a huge collection of company logos in a random github repo. github is hardly known for good legal practices -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Dim 5 mai 2013 11:27, Felix Miata a écrit : On 2013-05-05 10:19 (GMT+0200) Alec Leamas composed: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Here is the current status of @font-face ttf/otf support in browsers: http://caniuse.com/ttf ... This seems to mean that we force web applications to exclude IE version 8 (and older) clients. As this seems to be a widely used IE version today... Note that the current IE version is 8 for WinXP users. Minimum OS version for IE9+ is Vista, which explains the seeming popularity of IE8. And XP is out-of-support Microsoft-side. So any company use (that is what is being talked about here) is likely to stop soonish -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 2013-05-05 11:44 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot composed: XP is out-of-support Microsoft-side. For what definition of out-of-support? http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/endofsupport.aspx Considering Fedora release lifetimes, WinXP seems to have abundant life left. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Dim 5 mai 2013 12:01, Felix Miata a écrit : On 2013-05-05 11:44 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot composed: XP is out-of-support Microsoft-side. For what definition of out-of-support? http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/endofsupport.aspx Considering Fedora release lifetimes, WinXP seems to have abundant life left. If you take into account the time between new package creation, and its release as part of a new Fedora version, 'abundant' seems quite optimistic to me (not to mention that MS OS support is limited to the system itself, ie in the last years of windows 2000 support you could not find any supported app to install on it). Esp. when the package is a complex beast like an erp — that requires at least a few months of testing before going into production. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 05/05/2013 11:40 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Dim 5 mai 2013 10:19, Alec Leamas a écrit : This seems to mean that we force web applications to exclude IE version 8 (and older) clients. As this seems to be a widely used IE version today, is this really the way to go? It seems to be a case of Fedora being first and Microsoft being last :p In my specific case openerp7, a business server application often used in company environments, the IE8- share is probably larger than average. It's certainly the most common client used at many sites. Are you sure it works well in IE8 at all? Because there are lots of other reasons a modern web site will fail in old ie versions Double checking... and you're right, openerp only supports IE 9+. Which means that I could indeed go for using ttf/otf only. Other folks might have interest in this, don't know, but as fas as I am concerned this resolves some loose ends. I'm still not convinced that it makes sense to package a font like zocial like a regular desktop font (leaving legal issues aside here). There is also the case when a package contains both a webfont and a desktop font (with different ttf files). Something like a /usr/share/fonts/webfonts for fonts packaged solely as a web static resource might possibly be a solution, I guess (?) --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Am 05.05.2013 11:44, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: And XP is out-of-support Microsoft-side. So any company use (that is what is being talked about here) is likely to stop soonish fix your calendar there where i live we have 2013 and not 2014 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 05/03/2013 09:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: [cut] I'm truly a font newbie. That said, is there really a meaningful fallback for a font such as sozial (https://github.com/adamstac/zocial)? I. e., is there a reasonable fallback for a Facebook button? I think spot will agree there is no way we'll ever ship a font consisting of company logos, it's trademark hell (this is another example that proves the wisdom of checking every font, even 'special' 'embedded' ones) My bad, here is no FB button. See the font overview in http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/tmp/zocial.png. I'll bring this to the fedora-legal list. --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: I think spot will agree there is no way we'll ever ship a font consisting of company logos, it's trademark hell We ship *lots* of trademarked logos. In Firefox alone there are trademarked logos from Mozilla, Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, Microsoft, eBay, and Twitter. As long as we're complying with the trademark guidelines for them, it shouldn't be a problem. -T.C. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 04/29/2013 11:22 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: The reply makes me feel a little more confused, on a higher level. How does that reply translate to the packaging of a web application with some bundled webfonts ? scratching my head. Me too :) Note that in my case the fonts are just just images and icons, which makes the normal font fallback mechanisms useless. They are needed, period. Well it is not defined in policy. You will be pioneer. Let package it as you think it is best. If somebody will disagree he will write bugzilla or will submit policy guidelines. -- Miroslav Suchy Red Hat Systems Management Engineering -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Lun 29 avril 2013 11:22, Alec Leamas a écrit : The reply makes me feel a little more confused, on a higher level. How does that reply translate to the packaging of a web application with some bundled webfonts ? scratching my head. That means that you usually do not need a special format webfont. Serving the system ttf/otf will work just as well, except for ie (and if your webapp includes any semi-advanced js it won't work well in ie anyway). Non ttf/otf webfont formats exist primarily to expose to the browser a file that can't be used directly in another app (DRMish). To serve the system ttf/otf font you 'just' need to expose /usr/share/fonts/whatever in your url space (for example, using apache alias directives + the usual file permission section) If you don't want to write web server configuration you will need to write complex rpm rules to copy at build or install time system fonts in your webapp directory, and version-lock your package with the system font packages to propagate changes in those packages in your webapp package. I doubt it will much easier than writing web server config rules. Note that in my case the fonts are just just images and icons, which makes the normal font fallback mechanisms useless. So you think. All fonts are just images and icons -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Ven 3 mai 2013 14:45, Miroslav Suchý a écrit : Note that in my case the fonts are just just images and icons, which makes the normal font fallback mechanisms useless. They are needed, period. Well it is not defined in policy. Actually, the current policy forbids fonts anywhere but in the standard filesystem paths https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy “Packagers MUST package each font family in a separate (noarch.rpm) (sub)package” “Creating font packages or subpackages in Fedora is done using the fontpackages-devel package” And fontpackages-devel won't let you install fonts anywhere but in the standard paths. I'm not convinced at all this needs changing, since mod_alias permits mapping of system paths anywhere you want in your URL space. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
NM == Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net writes: NM I'm not convinced at all this needs changing, since mod_alias NM permits mapping of system paths anywhere you want in your URL space. But selinux probably doesn't, so the issue is slightly more complicated. - J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Ven 3 mai 2013 16:24, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit : NM == Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net writes: NM I'm not convinced at all this needs changing, since mod_alias NM permits mapping of system paths anywhere you want in your URL space. But selinux probably doesn't, so the issue is slightly more complicated. I don't think selinux will block web server accesses to /usr/share/fonts/something, since we deploy webapps in /usr/share/something_else, which is pretty much the same namespace. If selinux wanted to filter accesses to /usr/share/fonts, a ro rule would be sufficient IMHO -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
NM == Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net writes: NM I don't think selinux will block web server accesses to NM /usr/share/fonts/something, since we deploy webapps in NM /usr/share/something_else, which is pretty much the same namespace. Well, there are a whole lot of specific fcontext entries for content in /usr/share, including fonts which get their own type (fonts_t). I certainly wouldn't assume that it would simply work, though it would be fairly easy for the policy to adapt if it didn't. My point was simply that there are other configurations besides fix it with mod_alias. - J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 05/03/2013 03:51 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Lun 29 avril 2013 11:22, Alec Leamas a écrit : The reply makes me feel a little more confused, on a higher level. How does that reply translate to the packaging of a web application with some bundled webfonts ? scratching my head. That means that you usually do not need a special format webfont. Serving the system ttf/otf will work just as well, except for ie (and if your webapp includes any semi-advanced js it won't work well in ie anyway). Non ttf/otf webfont formats exist primarily to expose to the browser a file that can't be used directly in another app (DRMish). OK, thanks for explanation! Still hesitating a here: if upstream has decided to support the widest possible set of browsers (including IE): should we really just drop the formats required by IE? From a user perspective, I don't really follow this although I do understand your line of reasoning. To serve the system ttf/otf font you 'just' need to expose /usr/share/fonts/whatever in your url space (for example, using apache alias directives + the usual file permission section) If you don't want to write web server configuration you will need to write complex rpm rules to copy at build or install time system fonts in your webapp directory, and version-lock your package with the system font packages to propagate changes in those packages in your webapp package. I doubt it will much easier than writing web server config rules. Web configuration is not that that scary, indeed ;). And here is an obvious possibility to package this once and for all in a separate package like apache-fonts-access exposing the complete font tree, I guess. Note that in my case the fonts are just just images and icons, which makes the normal font fallback mechanisms useless. So you think. All fonts are just images and icons I'm truly a font newbie. That said, is there really a meaningful fallback for a font such as sozial (https://github.com/adamstac/zocial)? I. e., is there a reasonable fallback for a Facebook button? --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
Le Ven 3 mai 2013 21:06, Alec Leamas a écrit : Still hesitating a here: if upstream has decided to support the widest possible set of browsers (including IE): should we really just drop the formats required by IE? From a user perspective, I don't really follow this although I do understand your line of reasoning. Here is the current status of @font-face ttf/otf support in browsers: http://caniuse.com/ttf Normal opentype files work in the latest versions of all browsers (except opera mini :p) Adding special webfont formats is not worth the pain, and anyway the main use would be old ie versions, that require eot which is not a really open format. I'm truly a font newbie. That said, is there really a meaningful fallback for a font such as sozial (https://github.com/adamstac/zocial)? I. e., is there a reasonable fallback for a Facebook button? I think spot will agree there is no way we'll ever ship a font consisting of company logos, it's trademark hell (this is another example that proves the wisdom of checking every font, even 'special' 'embedded' ones) -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 10:15 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: NM == Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net writes: NM I don't think selinux will block web server accesses to NM /usr/share/fonts/something, since we deploy webapps in NM /usr/share/something_else, which is pretty much the same namespace. Well, there are a whole lot of specific fcontext entries for content in /usr/share, including fonts which get their own type (fonts_t). I certainly wouldn't assume that it would simply work, though it would be fairly easy for the policy to adapt if it didn't. My point was simply that there are other configurations besides fix it with mod_alias. Yeah. Obviously the sensible thing is to check, but since httpd is such a sensitive component, it has a very restrictive selinux policy. I tend to treat it as a rule of thumb that httpd can't read anything unless it's httpd_sys_content_t or httpd_sys_rw_content_t . It's *certainly* not safe to assume that httpd can or should be able to 'at least read' any old thing in /usr , or /usr/share , or any other system path; vulnerabilities that let some webapp read /etc/passwd or some other sensitive file are a dime a dozen, and that's certainly one of the things SELinux aims to mitigate. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 04/27/2013 01:49 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: I'm trying to package a web application with bundled fonts. These fonts are used by the web clients (browsers), and just served from the Fedora webapp. The case is similar to javascript .js files. Trying to package the webfonts as dependencies I have run into problem together with my reviewer. Basically, we don't know what to do. Some questions: - Where should webfonts be stored? A specific dir would be good, since some fonts exists in both a webfont and desktop variant with the same filenames. - How shoulld webapps get access to the system webfont? Is the apache config file approach used for ..js files, where the webapp gets access to specific system paths, usable also here? - Given that the primary concern about fonts seems to be licensing, is it really meaningful to unbundle them? This is the short story. The somewhat longer: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/277 Any help, out there? I had the same answer few months ago and got this answer: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-December/008783.html -- Miroslav Suchy Red Hat Systems Management Engineering -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Q: webfonts:
On 04/29/2013 11:04 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 04/27/2013 01:49 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: I'm trying to package a web application with bundled fonts. These fonts are used by the web clients (browsers), and just served from the Fedora webapp. The case is similar to javascript .js files. Trying to package the webfonts as dependencies I have run into problem together with my reviewer. Basically, we don't know what to do. Some questions: - Where should webfonts be stored? A specific dir would be good, since some fonts exists in both a webfont and desktop variant with the same filenames. - How shoulld webapps get access to the system webfont? Is the apache config file approach used for ..js files, where the webapp gets access to specific system paths, usable also here? - Given that the primary concern about fonts seems to be licensing, is it really meaningful to unbundle them? This is the short story. The somewhat longer: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/277 Any help, out there? I had the same answer few months ago and got this answer: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-December/008783.html Thanks! I knew I had seen this message somewhere, but lost it... The reply makes me feel a little more confused, on a higher level. How does that reply translate to the packaging of a web application with some bundled webfonts ? scratching my head. Note that in my case the fonts are just just images and icons, which makes the normal font fallback mechanisms useless. They are needed, period. --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
