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: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:42:05 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02133152@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
>
>On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:13 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>
>> I did too. But if a license does require same-origin checks then it
>was assumed
>> a customer might want to use the rootstring to do that for the IE
>installed base.
>
>Absolute clarity on that matter would be helpful.
>I regard "same-origin" (more likely: "CORS") checks
>as a term of art in which rootstrings in font files
>play no role.  If people are using the term more loosely
>then that will cause problems down the road.
>

That's not the question here. The issue is that the IE installed
base we're trying to be compatible with will not apply any origin
restrictions beyond those embedded in the file. So if the EULA does
require origin restrictions, things get harder. Given that the only
feature on hand for the IE installed base is one we all deemed too
complicated for many real-world scenarios.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:42:48 GMT

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