- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:29:07 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > 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. There are no rights being managed in any way. Rejecting a file because it's formatted incorrectly is *not* DRM, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:30:02 UTC