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 13:43:20 +0000
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E021371A4@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: John Hudson [mailto:tiro@tiro.com]


>I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a browser that fails to follow
>this when encountering an EOT-Classic font is at legal risk. If not, why
>all the fuss about DMCA? At the very least, this seems to me a question
>that needs to be examined by qualified lawyers experienced with this
>kind of issue.
>
>At present, the non-IE browser makers are deliberately not touching EOT
>fonts because they don't want to get entangled with the rootstring
>issue. They're not supporting EOT but ignoring rootstrings: they're
>keeping the heck away from EOT altogether. It seems to me that they must
>continue to do so, because the status of EOT Classic fonts doesn't
>magically change when EOT Lite comes along.  This means that while EOT
>Lite fonts can be backwards compatible with IE<=8, EOT Classic fonts
>must not be forwards compatible with EOT Lite. Somehow the two formats
>need to be clearly distinct at the file level, such that an EOT Lite
>implementing browser can process the one but avoid the other.

John, the latest proposal means that this scenario cannot happen.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 13:44:03 GMT

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