- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:22:43 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
We get to the heart of the matter! On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 14:14 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > > An EOTC file with a non-nil rootstring has a > > version number distinct from EOTLs and apparently > > an EOTL processor MUST reject that file. > > If it only support EOTLs, yes. If it supports EOTC as well, it must > process it as an EOTC file, *not* an EOTL, if it wants to be > conforming. > > I have no idea how this is opposite, or even relevant to, what I said, though. Then the version number, the XOR bit, and the MTX bit in an EOTL file serve as a DRM mechanism. That is why consensus and passage over Objections is unlikely. It would be a very bad precedent for W3C. -t
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:23:24 UTC