- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:36:53 -0700
- 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 UTC