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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:26:35 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0907311626h60ac6ee7ne10d2f3d29189b8@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: info@ascenderfonts.com, www-font <www-font@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> Thanks Bill.
>
> Well then, assuming Ascender is representative of other font vendors (any
> care to comment?),

No offense to the Ascender folks, but I don't think you can assume
*any* single foundry is representative of other foundries when it
comes to licensing details at the level you're looking for. The
industry (the very phrase may be misleading) isn't that cohesive!

> 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.

First, it's a question of what foundries will require in their EULAs
for this case.

*If* the EULA is flexible enough to accept *either* root strings or
referrer checking, I wouldn't want to make any assumption about that
authors will prefer, one or the other.

Cheers,

T
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 23:27:12 GMT

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