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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format v.1.1

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:26:51 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249061211.6160.69.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 12:15 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Sylvain
> Galineau<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> That is, do these checks occur past the point of no return, or can
> >> they be part of the "check what kind of font this file is" algorithm,
> >> allowing a conforming implementation to then attempt to load it as a
> >> different kind of font (such as EOT-Classic)?
> >
> > If you support EOT-Classic then you will load any EOTL. A core requirement
> > of this proposal is that all EOTLs are valid EOTs. So maybe I'm missing the
> > question ?
> 
> Valid EOTLs are a strict subset of valid EOTs.  Can an implementation
> conform to the EOTL spec while still successfully processing

Tab, you should be clear that by "successfully
processing" you mean, at the very least, ignoring
the contents of the root string.  (You might also
include XOR-foo and MTX in your query.)  

(I assume that that's what you mean, anyway.
In some eyes, "successfully processing" might
mean "honors root strings".)

-t


>  those
> files which are valid EOT but not EOTL?  You can qualify your answer
> with any sets of features differing between EOT and EOTL if you wish.

> ~TJ
> 
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 17:27:32 GMT

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