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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:32:49 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600907311432i43f4e5aarda1b5348c444660a@mail.gmail.com>
To: info@ascenderfonts.com
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Thanks Bill.

Well then, assuming Ascender is representative of other font vendors (any
care to comment?), EOTL needs to ignore the rootstring, it needs to use a
version number that enables rootstring processing in IE<=8, and authors will
need to insert appropriate rootstrings to get them to work as EOT Classic
fonts for IE<=8.

Although I think rootstrings are bad, this seems to be the best of a bad set
of deployment options for authors who need to target IE<=8.

The question for authors then is: how valuable is EOTL, given these
constraints? Would it still be seen as a big win, and get wide use, over the
alternatives? (The main alternative being to standardize something like ZOT
or .webfont and authors either not supporting IE<=8 or deploying EOT Classic
and ZOT/.webfont versions of their fonts.)

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 21:33:33 GMT

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