[Zirro]

"It seems Firefox is the only browser to adhere to the specification in this regard."

I fail to see how being the only browser to honour the specification is anywhere near being a "fiasco" (which is defined as "a thing that is a complete failure"). There's most likely a reason for the way the specification is designed, and in this case Firefox should get credit for being the only browser doing it correctly.

[JoshTriplett]

Specifications can have bugs or deficiencies, and in those cases diverging from the specification can provide a net win. Also note that in this case the specification considers the cross-origin restrictions optional, not mandatory.

In this case, prohibiting the loading of fonts from other domains (unlike img, video, audio, CSS, script, etc) seems both unnecessary and harmful.

As I understand it, that bit of the specification exists for the sole purpose of mollifying large commercial font foundries, who consider themselves the only source of usable fonts, and who consider this particular point an existential threat.

[bryckbost]

True. The fiasco is more or less around the issue of discovering the root cause of why my fonts weren't displaying properly in Firefox, when they did in webkit.

[leephillips]

Depends which webkit browser you're using. Chrome has weird problems[1] in displaying these fonts, for example.

[1]http://lee-phillips.org/google-chromeBadKerning/

[danielmorrison]

Plus "fiasco" helps with the alliteration.

[vampirechicken]

As would any number of other f-words that also were not correct in context.