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 16:06:28 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908031406l7da09cb5k84f41b7dfc5f9c3b@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 3:28 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 15:20 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
>
>> > Do I understand you correctly if I think
>> > you are saying, in effect:
>
>> > "EOTL is downward compatible (by design) with existing
>> > EOTC processors while it also has certain bits
>> > to distinguish EOTL from EOTC -- but in spite of
>> > that we don't call it a `new version' of EOTC"?
>
>> Sure.  It's compatible with EOTC in a specific, intended fashion.  It
>> is not a new version of EOTC.
>
>> > More succinctly, are you saying that it is
>> > not a new version of EOTC "in name only"?
>
>> Nope.
>
> The cognitive dissonance is pretty overwhelming.
> It looks, walks, and quacks like a new version
> of the format, but it is not a new version of the
> format.  Honestly, I'm not sure I love Big Brother
> quite that much.  Color me "doubleplusskeptical".

To use an example near and dear to my heart, 3rd-party video game
controllers with "turbo" functionality are purposely compatible with
existing video game systems.  They are not new versions of the 1st
party controllers.

>> >> You also haven't addressed just what rights are being managed by
>> >> ensuring that a file is formatted correctly before attempting to
>> >> render it.
>> >
>> > The right to render an EOTC file.
>>
>> No one's preventing you from rendering EOTC files.
>
> If that is the case, then we should be able to
> agree that an EOTL Recommendation should include
> the MTX patent protection and declare that UAs
> "SHOULD" support EOTC while ignoring protection
> fields.

We're not trying to achieve interop on EOTC files, though.  Why would
we make such a declaration?

>> If you get one,
>> render away.  But if you get an EOTL file, and you want to be
>> conforming, you must not render it unless it conforms to the specified
>> format.
>
> The dictum "be tolerant in what you receive" suggests
> otherwise.

That is far, far from an absolute.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:07:30 GMT

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