Re: EOT-Lite File Format

On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:56 -0700, John Hudson wrote:
> Tab wrote:

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


The maxim "Be tolerant in what you receive, strict in what
you transmit" applies here.

According to that maxim, a Recommendation MUST NOT say
"MUST NOT render" on the flimsy excuse of a non-nil 
root string - but a Recommendation probably SHOULD say
"MUST render" for the case of a nil root string.


> 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].

[amen to your [...]]

-t




> 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.