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

RE: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite (was: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata)

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:55:48 +0000
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E0210E25F@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: Christopher Slye [mailto:cslye@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:05 PM
>To: Sylvain Galineau


>One of the professed advantages of EOT Lite is its existing "installed
>base" (i.e. Internet Explorer). However, for those who are more
>interested in CFF-EOT fonts, there are significant and well-known
>deficiencies in the Windows/IE platform. Acknowledging that these
>deficiencies are bugs and/or "should be fixed" is something, but
>obviously it is more valuable to know that they *will* be fixed soon
>(to the extent that they can be fixed at all).
>
>Win/IE's problems with CFF are relevant for any web font format (or
>raw fonts, for that matter), but it seems obvious that MS is going to
>have to "walk the walk" if it wants to see EOT be more than a niche
>solution. I think Ascender has done MS a great favor by giving EOT a
>second wind as EOT Lite, but it's DOA if the CFF issues persist.
>
>Sylvain, what do you think? I've already heard both optimistic and
>pessimistic assessments of this situation, and I'm looking for some
>reason to trust the former.

Christopher, my understanding is that Windows 7 support CFF/.otf, including
for EOT embedding. Were you asking whether this support would be offered for
earlier releases of Windows, or stating that it should ?
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 14:56:32 GMT

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