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 11:00:04 -0700
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249063204.6160.91.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:51 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 10:15 AM
> 
> 
> > Valid EOTLs are a strict subset of valid EOTs.  Can an implementation
> > conform to the EOTL spec while still successfully processing 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.
> 
> I hope so as that's what the next release of IE must do :)
> Version 2 files that match all the EOTL criteria will be treated
> as EOTL including same-origin/CORS. Anything that is not a valid EOTL
> but a valid EOT will be treated as such.

That would seem to evade the question because
future IE will presumably honor root strings
in EOT classic files.

-t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 18:00:44 GMT

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