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 21:50:51 -0700
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Cc: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>, 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>
Message-Id: <1249015851.6257.221.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0400, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> 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).

That will relieve my concerns in this area.
Can I get an "amen" from Ascender and MSFT?


>  Other means, such as
> same-origin restrictions and CORS will be in place to prevent
> hot-linking, etc.

Damn straight.  Amen, brother.

-t



> Regards,
> Vladimir
> 
> > -t
> > 
> > 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 04:51:32 GMT

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