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: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 11:55:12 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908040955r1a06128p138ffc25306a9c40@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-font@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Anton Prowse<prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> Am I understanding the following correctly, then?
> 1.) EOTL1.1 allows web authors to create and link to font files in such a
> way that the same syntax and file will work  both in EOTL1.1-compliant
> browsers and in legacy IE browsers which are fooled into thinking that
> they're processing some kind of EOT file.  However, existing web pages which
> utilize EOT+rootstrings will "break" in EOTL1.1-compliant browsers; authors
> of such sites will need to update their stylesheets/files to employ a
> different technique if they wish to use linked fonts in future browsers.
>  (If authors choose EOTL1.1 for this purpose, they merely need to regenerate
> their font file according to the rules of EOTL1.1; they won't necessarily
> need to change their stylesheet since the existing syntax and filename can
> be preserved if desired.)

Yes.  An EOTL1.1-compliant browser *may* choose to support EOTC as
well if they wish, but practically that's probably not going to

> 2.) EOTLwrip ("EOTL with rootstring in padding") offers the same
> cross-browser compatibility advantages as EOTL1.1 and additionally avoids
> "breakage" in EOTLwrip-compliant browsers of existing web pages which
> utilize EOT+rootstrings.  This is because the presence, in the
> currently-linked font file, of some fluff which has a passing resemblance to
> a "rootstring" in some other file format (EOT) does not "corrupt" the file
> for EOTL1.1 implementations.

Not quite.  A compliant EOTLwrip browser can tell the different
between EOTLwrip and EOT-with-rootstrings, and *must not* parse the
latter as the former.  If they wish to support EOT-with-rootstring
separately, that's fine, but they must not confuse the two.

The take-away point is that there is no compatibility difference
between the EOTL1.1/EOTC pair and EOTLwrip/EOT-with-rootstrings pair.
It's merely a question of whether the benefit of supporting EOTLwrip
(you can embed a rootstring in the padding, simulating same-origin
restrictions in nonconformant legacy IEs) is worth the possible
penalty (some people believe it may still open browsers up to
liability, though several have argued the opposite).

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 16:58:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:41 UTC