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 19:06:35 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907301706q3455ee54w8580699d330e6915@mail.gmail.com>
To: rfink@readableweb.com
Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fink<rfink@readableweb.com> wrote:
> Thursday, July 30, 2009 Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>:
>
> Thomas Lord wrote:
>
>>That suggests a SHOULD requirement.  UAs SHOULD ignore
>>non-nil root-strings but are not obligated to do so.
>>Authors can't count on them being ignored on the one
>>hand but UA makers are encouraged to ignore them
>>entirely.
>
> Tab Atkins replied:
>
>>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.
>
> I see it the way Tab does. UAs MUST ignore non-nil rootstrings. EOT classic
> will be dead as of >IE8. The new spec being Ex Post Facto. This seems in
> line with what's been discussed all along.

Well, I think it's pretty likely that IE9 will still support EOT -
pages that are using EOT fonts now will 'break' without it.

Now, hopefully it will become *practically* dead at that point, as
everyone starts using the interoperable format.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:07:36 GMT

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