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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:22:48 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907301622v5f93942ajf31e50f88c8cb110@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:59 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sylvain Galineau
>> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>         2. We recommend using 0x00020000 for EOTL files as that
>>         version has no rootstrings nor EUDC. This means step #2 checks
>>         for that value
>>         only.
>
>
>> What do you mean "has no rootstrings"? You'd want IE (<=8) to process
>> rootstrings contained in EOTL, to make it easier for authors to comply
>> with font licensing.
>
>
> That suggests a SHOULD requirement.  UAs SHOULD ignore
> non-nil root-strings but are not obligated to do so.
> Authors can't count on them being ignored on the one
> hand but UA makers are encouraged to ignore them
> entirely.

Nope, it has to be a MUST requirement - UAs MUST ignore non-nil
rootstrings.  IE <= 8 browsers will just be nonconforming (which is
fine, since they were produced before this standard was produced), and
authors can take advantage of that to hack something resembling
same-origin into it if they wish.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:23:43 GMT

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