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
happen.

> 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).

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 16:58:23 GMT

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