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

RE: I expect all foundries to start offering web font licenses within 6 months.

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:02:49 +0000
To: "rfink@readableweb.com" <rfink@readableweb.com>, 'Håkon Wium Lie' <howcome@opera.com>
CC: 'Dave Crossland' <dave@lab6.com>, 'Thomas Phinney' <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, 'www-font' <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E020D085F@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: Richard Fink [mailto:rfink@readableweb.com]


>I couldn't understand how they magically did away with the rootstrings
>requirement.But the original code allowed for it. Go figure.
>There's a post on my blog that explains it pretty well, I think:
>http://readableweb.com/jeffrey-zeldman-questions-the-eot-lite-web-font-
>forma
>t/
>
>Cheers,
>
>rich

The technical answer is in the EOT submission [1] :

"A null RootString, indicating the font may be used for any site, must only be used if the font's owner gives permission to all people everywhere to use the font for embedding."

So Ascender's proposal effectively reuses optional null rootstrings for a different purpose than originally intended. EOT-Lite files have a null rootstring but they no longer mean
Permission has been 'given to all people everywhere use of the font for embedding'. A formal specification could simply indicate that this part of the header must be null without further
requirements. It could also indicate that a conformant user agent must ignore this item i.e. a future version of IE would have to ignore it like everyone else to conform. At which point
rootstrings are out of EOT.

This is my understanding of both the proposal and the general requirements from other browser vendors.


[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-EOT-20080305/#AuthoringTools
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 20:05:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT