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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:36:53 -0700
Message-ID: <4A722E95.6010903@tiro.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> 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.

That would be my inclination too, insofar as other than maintaining data 
structure for backwards compatibility with EOT, there is no reason for a 
place to put rootstrings to exist in the EOT Lite spec at all: the whole 
point of EOT Lite is that it doesn't include rootstrings. So it makes 
sense to say that an EOT Lite conforming browser must ignore non-nil 
rootstrings.

This presumes, of course, that a browser is able to distinguish in the 
wild between an EOT Lite font and and older EOT font. Is this going to 
be reliably possible? There are existing EOT fonts linked to websites 
targeting IE<=8, and what happens when a new EOT Lite conforming browser 
tries to display one of these websites?

JH
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:37:40 GMT

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