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

Re: EOT-Lite clarification

From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:44:26 +0100
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>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
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,  

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC