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 23:55:48 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297EFA7@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>, "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>, "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:43 PM Thomas Lord wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 20:15 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote:
> > I should point out that it was my suggestion that a browser could
> > simply reject rendering of a font that had root strings. My reason
> for
> > suggesting that was Hakon's concern that a browser that simply
> ignored
> > the root string could open itself up to DMCA action or some such.
> 
> That alone is justification for taking EOT-lite off
> the table, if what you say sticks.  That is why I ask
> for a positive assertion that UAs should render even in
> the face of a mis-matched non-nil rootstring.
> 

As I understand what the current draft says
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0780.html), the
EOT-Lite conforming UA will render a font if it's capable to do so,
regardless of the presence of rootstring (i.e. completely ignoring the
root strings, whether mismatched or not). Other means, such as
same-origin restrictions and CORS will be in place to prevent
hot-linking, etc.

Regards,
Vladimir

> -t
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:56:06 GMT

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