W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:14:00 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF292508B@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>, "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
EOT version 1.0 doesn’t even have a place for root string to be inserted. I’d assume that the only difference between EOT 1.0 and EOT Lite would be compression (which is optional for authors to use but is required for UA to support). I guess EOT Lite just removes that option.

 

-Vlad

 

From: Chris Wilson [mailto:Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:53 PM
To: robert@ocallahan.org; Levantovsky, Vladimir
Cc: Thomas Lord; John Daggett; www-font
Subject: RE: Fonts WG Charter feedback

 

Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>If "EOT Lite" fonts are to work in IE <= 8, then they must have the problems I described. Authors will need to implement Referer checking, otherwise fonts linked across domains will work in IE. And rootstring data will be treated differently by different browsers, if it is present, even though you say it shouldn't be.

 

No-o – I think if there’s no referrer, then it would work in IE.  I forget the internal details of the string match, but I would presume that can be worked around.  I was presuming when I read the proposal that it would mean rootstrings weren’t present?  Yes, if a rootstring WERE inserted into the file, it might NOT match in older IE versions; bummer.  Don’t do that (in your generation tool).

 

-Chris

Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 00:14:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT