- From: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:50:02 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
2009/8/3 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dave Crossland<dave@lab6.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > any rootstrings embedded in the 'padding' area of an EOTL file > *are not rootstrings* > ... > In the hypothetical EOTLwrip (with-rootstrings-in-padding) > format we're talking about, there are no rootstrings. Any rootstrings are not rootstrings. In the with-rootstrings-in-padding format there are no rootstrings. 2 + 2 = 5. > There is only > padding data which may be interpreted differently by certain legacy, > nonconforming browsers. Your proposed W3C Recommendation says that these rootstrings are mere padding. A font vendor has distributed a million EOTLs with such mere padding containing rootstrings for stale MSIE. They are nearing bankruptcy and have only enough equity left to hire some lawyers and sue a wealthy browser developer before any more activity risks becoming fraudulent trading. Welcome to the collapse of the American empire!
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 18:51:02 UTC