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

Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:41:30 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20908030941k5cc5c94cxda6f3eaacf1cd1a@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
2009/8/3 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>:
> (or
> even goes further, and explicitly acknowledges that while rootstrings
> were in the version of EOT that EOTL is based on, they're now part of
> 'padding' and MUST be ignored)

I see no difference between a browser that implements EOT as submitted
to W3C 18 months ago and ignores root strings, and a browser that
implements EOTL as submitted to W3C in 6 months time and ignores root
strings when it sees them.

Given many case studies of how DMCA-style laws are used to attack free
software projects, and given browser developers said that EOT of yore
posed too much DMCA risk, why does EOTL that allows ignoring
rootstrings when present pose less risk?

I assert that if the W3C promotes the distribution of files with root
strings, it will compromise its credibility.

> You put up a font.  Someone hotlinks it to
> use on their own site.  What happens?  The font is completely ignored
> on 30%-40% of browsers!

Therefore EOTLs that contain a rootstring other than "*" ought to be
rejected by EOTL-conforming browsers.

This will not harm backwards compatibility with stale MSIE.
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 16:42:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:41 UTC