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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:28:35 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1248996515.6257.92.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 18:22 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:

> > 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.

You are a braver man than I, in this matter.
Only... I'm not at all sure you're wrong.
Still, I'll offer my case:

I suggest "SHOULD" because that would allow
"IE<=8" to be retroactively conforming.  Of course,
if they are not retroactively conforming, then
what's the point?  Take EOT-lite off the table,
in that case.

-t
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:29:14 GMT

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