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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:35:01 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249000501.6257.129.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:16 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> >Of Thomas Lord
> >
> >I think we have a problem there.  What you describe
> >is a DRM-via-standards mechanism - the very problem
> >that EOT-lite supposedly cures.   This is probably
> >a minor problem rather than one that needs to cause
> >a split (is my take on the tone and content of the
> >discussion).
> >
> What DRM ? For what client ? An EOTL-conforming client
> has no rootstring checking to perform. None. Existing
> IE is not an EOTL-conforming client, but an EOT client....

I understand you, Sylvain, to be saying something
different from what the Ascender proposal says.

You seem to me to be saying: "clients just ignore
the root string... it's a dummy field."

The proposal seems to say that if that dummy field
is non-empty, the font "is not" rendered.  It's 
unclear to me what the informal "is not" corresponds
to in the formal language of a Recommendation.

There's murk and mud there.  Let's clear it up.

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:35:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC