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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:46:13 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
CC: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02132F1D@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>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.

I think there is an interesting scenario there. Imagine I license
an EOT from Monotype, set rootstrings then deploy it without compression
or XOR encoding. If its version matches whatever existing EOT version EOTL settles on
then it will load in the EOTL client despite the rootstring and possibly in violation
of its license.

So either EOTL clients check for nil-rootstrings (wrecking the possibility of
hijacking them for same-origin checks in legacy IE) or we use a new version number
for EOTL to disambiguate the latter from EOT.

Makes sense ?


>
>~TJ

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:46:58 GMT

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