- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:13:22 -0700
- To: www-font@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:07 PM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: > >>> An EOTL Recommendation that does not encourage >>> EOTC support with rootstrings ignored effectively >>> endorses the use of rootstrings as a UA-enforced >>> form of DRM. > >> Right - when we say "EOTC files with rootstrings should be ignored" we >> mean that the FILE should be ignored - flushed, as John Hudson >> poetically calls it - and not merely the rootstring. > > But that's not what Tom Lord means by 'ignored'. You and I agree, Dave, that > fonts with rootstrings should be flushed, i.e. non-IE browsers should make > no attempt to display them. What Tom is suggesting is reckless legal > endangerment: ignore the rootstring and display the font anyway. I don't see that the EOTL spec needs to even deal with this. It deals with EOTL fonts. What browsers decide to do with EOTC fonts is a distinct question and one that individual browser vendors can deal with on their own. Regards, T
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:13:58 UTC