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

Re: EOT Lite - possible outcomes

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:56:15 +0300
Message-ID: <4A4DD5BF.1010902@peda.net>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Chris Wilson wrote:
> Mikko Rantalainen asked:
>> I want to make sure we're on the same map here. Do you think that
>> Monotype and other commercial font vendors would be happy with EOT
>> Lite given the following status:
>> (1) EOT Lite font files do not include rootstrings
>> (2) EOT Lite font files do not include compression
>> (3) EOT Lite font files do not require same-origin restrictions
> 
>> Note that (1) and (2) are required so that Firefox, Safari and Opera
>> can implement EOT Lite. The (3) is required for MSIE compatibility,
>> so we have no choices here.
> 
> I'm not sure that (3) would be a requirement for IE, actually.  I
> haven't checked the data, but actually I think you could enable
> same-origin checking and have good-enough compatibility - or IE could
> check and see if it was an old EOT file (e.g. HAD a rootstring) and
> allow it to work cross-domain.  Or that could be part of the spec, I
> don't care.  I would expect (though I don't know) that the vendors
> would want SO protection, but that's up to them to weigh in on.

When I wrote that "(3) is required for MSIE compatibility" I meant that
if we want true interoperability, we have no choices. Even Microsoft
cannot change that fact that existing versions of MSIE support the EOT
the way they support.

However, if the interoperability we're targeting for is "next versions
of major browsers do the same", then I agree. Given that Microsoft
implements same-origin restrictions for EOT (Lite) files, of course.

I want to make it clear to font vendors, that if we go with this route,
all existing versions of MSIE will NOT implement same-origin
restrictions. I have this far assumed that font vendors would not accept
this (because they have historically insisted on using root strings in EOT).

>> You do realize that this does not prevent linking and using EOT
>> Lite font files without a proper license and there's no protection
>> of any kind [...]
> 
> "Prevention" is a strong word, and I'll be clear that I've moved down
> on this over the last couple of years - Vlad's "garden fence" analogy
> is a good one here.

I'm just trying to make clear that EOT Lite would not enforce anything.
*It would just happen* to work with browsers and not work as OS font.

>> If this is all okay, I'm for it. In practice, the results are:
>>
>> (A) true interoperability between browsers (including MSIE)
>> (B) prevent interoperability with the OS (for now)
> 
> Yes.  And note that "for now" would really be "for anyone following
> the license that's in the font file", which is likely enough for the
> vendors to be happy (yes?).

I agree that OS vendors wouldn't probably support EOT files installed as
the OS font. Again, I'm just trying to make it clear that OS vendors
have no obligations over this issue and this should not be considered as
protection for the font.

-- 
Mikko



Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 09:57:00 GMT

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