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 14:29:07 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908031229l66033465i250235aaf89632d5@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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