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 19:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: <2285a9d20908031150y1f623adai954b86ed3a0f9303@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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