W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 18:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <638820.364821249434376799.JavaMail.root@cm-mail02.mozilla.org>
> > Just to be clear, I'm still not convinced that EOT-Lite is the way
> > to go.  But each proposal should be given due consideration and
> > it's much easier to consider clearly laid out proposals than lots
> > of hypothetical what-if's and Lordisms.
> 
> Most definitely agree on the latter. Regarding the former, do you
> mind summarizing your outstanding concerns ? I've gathered you're
> not convinced this is enough for font vendors. Like Roc, the ability
> to enforce same-origin on legacy IE may be a bother. What else ?

My other concern is whether EOT-Lite is really going to be
interoperable or not with <= IE8.  I haven't really done enough
testing yet but the few tests that I've done makes me wonder how solid
@font-face support is in IE.  IE6 only supports loading a single font
per family name, so to support IE6 authors will need to use
IE6-specific styles.

If authors conclude that using @font-face in IE is too flakey or
cumbersome and instead opt for a mixture of @font-face in non-IE
browsers and image replacement techniques in IE, then the key
advantage of EOT-Lite is lost.

Others seem to view EOT-Lite as a stepping stone format that would be
followed by a better .webfont/ZOT/something-else format.  But another
new format would need to offer a big marginal advantage to offset the
disruption supporting yet another format would cause.

Clearly the ideal is to have one format that font vendors are
comfortable with and that authors find convenient, dependable and easy
to use.  How much EOT-Lite or a new format deviates from this ideal
requires more testing.
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 01:06:57 GMT

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