- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:06:13 -0700
- To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 18:10 +0100, Jonathan Kew wrote: > If everyone implements EOTL now, [...] I think you can simplify that argument. The proponents argue for EOTL with same-origin+CORS. The rationales: 1) A required conversion step by authors acts as a low garden wall. 2) A required conversion step by downloaders acts a low garden wall. 3) EOTL will "just work" in IE<=8 4) same-orign+CORS helps to protect restricted license fonts and is anyway an important security measure None of those stands up to scrutiny. Server and service implementers will surely automate the conversion step for authors. UA and desktop implementers will surely automate the conversion step for downloaders. EOTL will not "just work" in IE<=8 for those browsers will not do same-origin+ CORS checking - EOTL will work incorrectly in IE<=8. Since conversions are reasonably expected to be automated, EOTL has no real value as a format distinct from TTF/OTF. Since IE has to be patched for same-origin+CORS anyway, TTF/OTF is not significantly harder to deploy. The only net effect of EOTL will be the proliferation of a new format with no advantages over old formats. That is in and of itself a bad idea regardless of the projected impact on future, improved font formats. It will fragment the tool market and add software bloat as the fragmentation is healed, without at any point giving even one new and useful bit of functionality to authors or users. It will fail to amount to a "low garden wall". -t
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 19:07:08 UTC