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 16:56:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4A723346.8030200@tiro.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Tab wrote:

>> If the EOT file also qualifies as a valid EOTL file...

Sylvain wrote:

> So either EOTL clients check for nil-rootstrings (wrecking the possibility of
> hijacking them for same-origin checks in legacy IE)...

I kind of assumed that EOTL clients would check for nil rootstrings, and 
that a non-nil rootstring would make it an invalid EOTL.

Whatever else it is, an EOT Lite font is a font with a nil rootstring 
[at the moment, it is also a font with no compression, but I'm really 
hoping that we can get this to a working group stage and satisfy 
Monotype's criteria for releasing the MTX patented compression].

Font makers are going to be licensing fonts for EOTL format linking, not 
EOT linking. And most of those makers, I suspect, will also be providing 
the EOTL files to the customer. Microsoft's original EOT model, whereby 
which the web author created his own .EOT files from TTFs only made 
sense because of the rootstrings and content-specific subsetting, 
particular to the use of the font on specific websites. Since there are 
no rootstrings in EOTL, and content-specific subsetting is no longer 
viable since web content is now a lot more dynamic than it was in 1990, 
I anticipate .EOTL -- or any other web font format -- being primarily a 
delivery format from font makers to licensees of web fonts.

JH
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:57:36 GMT

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