Re: EOT-Lite clarification

• From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:44:26 +0100
• To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
• Cc: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <53E00335-9AC0-417A-98DD-F6778C0F1C62@lorp.org>

On 28 Jul 2009, at 15:40, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> Can legacy IE implementations deal with a new file extension for EOT- 
> Lite files? I presumed (perhaps incorrectly) that file extension  
> itself may be part of the legacy we need to live with.

I proposed elsewhere that an alternative extension is the recommended  
extension for EOT-Lite fonts. This recommended extension, for  
example .eotl, would then be promoted as part of the spec. EOT-Lite  
validators could verify the absence of root strings, MTX compression,  
etc.

On XP+IE7, the .ttf and .aeot extensions worked fine in my tests, so I  
*presume* any extension or none for EOT fonts is fine with any version  
of IE.

- L

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 16:45:05 UTC