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 18:53:59 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249005239.6257.173.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 01:44 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
> 
> 
> >A browser, X, is presented with a perfectly
> >render-able EOT font that happens to have
> >a non-nil root string.  The prohibition "must not
> >render" in that case is either DRM or so close
> >to DRM that costly court battles can be anticipated
> >for the implementer who disregards the restriction.
> 
> First, there is no rootstring check. Currently, a
> conforming EOTL client does not know anything about
> rootstrings. EOTL generators *may* know.

The EOTL proposal says "is not loaded" if the
root string is non-nil.  That's a rootstring check.
It is very distinct from ignoring the rootstring,
at least as stated.

If  you are saying that the *intention* was to 
simply ignore the rootstring and the proposal
was malformed in that regard, that's great - but
I'd like to hear that from the source rather than
taking your word for it.

-t





> 
> EOT clients of course do.
> 
> Second, the current EOT header version does not include
> any rootstring space. It doesn't exist.
> 
> Let us stick to what is known and relevant here.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:54:38 GMT

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