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 18:40:57 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907301640n2e96e14frd74a0f13cfec3f6e@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.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>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:36 PM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> 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?

If the EOT file also qualifies as a valid EOTL file (which is very
possible), then it gets displayed.  If not, it doesn't, just like any
other random blob of data that doesn't comprise a recognized font
format.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:41:56 GMT

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