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

FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Bill Davis <info@ascenderfonts.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:35:29 -0500
To: "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00c801ca122f$35960ef0$a0c22cd0$@com>
Robert, first of all, we can only speak for Ascender. Every other type designer & foundry can and will have their own EULA.

But I don't understand why you are bringing up rootstrings. They are not part of the EOT Lite specification. 

I think you are overly complicating things. Or maybe I am missing your point?

We are trying to keep things simple. And I thought that what was described by John or Sylvain (need to go back and re-read the threads from today) did not have any of the constraints you mention below...

Bill

< on Friday, July 31, 2009 4:33 PM Robert O'Callahan wrote:
< 
< 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
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 22:32:14 GMT

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