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.

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 18:00:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC