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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:21:20 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297EF9E@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.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 Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:37 PM John Hudson wrote:
> 
> This presumes, of course, that a browser is able to distinguish in the
> wild between an EOT Lite font and and older EOT font. Is this going to
> be reliably possible? 

Strictly speaking, this is not necessary. The EOT-Lite format, as outlined by John Daggett, allows browsers to simply skip all fields of EOT header that are irrelevant for EOT-Lite.

> There are existing EOT fonts linked to websites
> targeting IE<=8, and what happens when a new EOT Lite conforming
> browser
> tries to display one of these websites?
> 

It will skip all irrelevant fields, but if TTEMBED_TTCOMPRESSED and TTEMBED_XORENCRYPTDATA flags check out fine - a browser will be able to process existing EOT font as if it was EOT-Lite font.

Cheers,
Vladimir

> JH

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 02:21:45 GMT

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