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

Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:33:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4A771F57.2010305@tiro.com>
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Dave Crossland wrote:

> 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?

This is the point I made a couple of days ago. Note, however, that the 
EOTL version currently proposed does not contain rootstrings, cannot 
contain rootstrings and be considered valid EOTL.

So the only issue re. rootstrings seems to be what a conforming browser 
does with non-valid EOTL fonts (including EOT Classic fonts). I believe 
the answer has to be 'flush them'. Ignoring the rootstring and 
pretending that the EOTL is valid is too risky.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 17:33:53 UTC

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