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

Re: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

From: karsten luecke <list@kltf.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:32:19 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200907281332.n6SDWJqV013546@post.webmailer.de>
To: www-font@w3.org
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Robert O'Callahan 
> <robert@ocallahan.org <mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Phinney
>> <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu <mailto:tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1) Existing IE versions don't support EOT files with OpenType CFF
>>> contents (though the EOT format is agnostic as to CFF vs TT
>>> contents).
>> 
>> It's not just an IE problem. Uniscribe at least up to Vista doesn't
>> work with dynamically loaded CFF fonts. (John Daggett will correct
>> me if I'm wrong.) We might be able to work around this in some
>> future Firefox version by shipping our own shaping engine.
> 
> Oops, that's largely irrelevant to this discussion since it affects any 
> kind of packaging of Opentype CFF fonts.

If I understand you correctly that this is a Uniscribe issue which affects
- other browsers that rely on Uniscribe (including Firefox)
in combination with
- other web font formats too (did I get this right?)
then this is rather the opposite of "largely irrelevant to this discussion".. For foundries, this is at least as relevant as "ouch, good to know".  :)

(And you robbed Mr Daggett of his core IE argument against EOT Lite.)

Karsten
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 13:35:23 GMT

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