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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format v.1.1

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:49:33 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907311249r155bb60as9a6d0d87b47a52b8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "rfink@readableweb.com" <rfink@readableweb.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Sylvain Galineau<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>From: Richard Fink [mailto:rfink@readableweb.com]
>>Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:59 AM
>
>
>>I'm having trouble squaring the above with this, below, unless you're
>>telling me that EOTL and EOT Classic would co-exist in IE going forward:
>>
>>>no rootstring can be circumvented in the current EOTL proposal since
>>they
>>cannot even
>>>be stored in the file, and that any file using Monotype's patented
>>technology must be rejected.
>>
>>So does this mean IE would have a dual-implementation supporting both
>>EOT
>>file types? I guess that's my question.
>
> Why does it need a dual implementation ? As all EOTLs are also EOT, any
> conforming EOT implementation can load any EOTL.
>
> What you may have missed is that earlier versions of the EOT header did
> not in fact have any rootstrings. This is the header that will be used
> for EOTLs and the font loader knows how to deal with those. The one change
> to IE9 would be to use all the checks specified in John's draft to determine
> whether a file is a valid EOTL; if it is, then do the same-origin/CORS check
> that it recommends.

That is indeed what I had missed.  I was still running under the
assumption that the rootstring bytes could be present, but were merely
classified as padding in EOTL.  My question is invalid if even the EOT
version of the header (where that 'padding' is meaningful data) can't
contain rootstrings.

Thanks, Sylvain.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 19:50:33 GMT

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