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

Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:11:43 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908031211i5b6b3193p2ce366be192d29fb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Dave Crossland<dave@lab6.com> wrote:
> 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.

Dude, put scarequotes around the appropriate parts if you want.  You
know what I meant.  Rootstrings-intended-to-be-enforced and
padding-data-that-looks-like-rootstrings-from-the-corresponding-EOT-format
are different things.

I mean, honestly, did you really think I was contradicting myself
within-sentence *twice*?

>> 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!

It's not like we can stop idiots from suing whomever they wish and
wasting everyone's time and money.  If that's your definition of
collapse, then America's been long gone.  ^_^

However, the EOTLwrip spec will say there are no rootstrings (there's
just padding data that must be ignored).  EOTL1.1 has no *possibility*
of containing 'rootstrings', in padding or not.  All modern browsers
will correctly ignore such 'rootstrings' lying in the ignored padding
area of EOTLwrip.  There's no case there.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:14:22 GMT

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