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

Re: RFC: EOTL font file specification version 1

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:34:15 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0908061034u16e19c9cm1b9e27123ef8448@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> If compatibility with legacy user agents (MSIE) is not required,

The entire reason for considering this format is compatibility with
legacy user agents; it is a requirement of the spec.

> The OpenType font data can be extended with additional tables to contain
> any meta information about the font as needed by font author/distributor.

This is true, and of course true of any other format one might
consider. (Though for formats which act as a wrapper and explicitly
have some other place to put the data, external to the font file
proper, one might argue that duplicating the new wrapper info in the
font is a Bad Idea.)

> In the end, any EOT classic font without XOR or MTX scrambling

I am of the impression that no pre-existing EOT classic fonts would
meet that requirement. Somebody could create new or revised EOT fonts
specifically with these restrictions in mind, however.

> Cons:
>
> - Undermines the "protection" provided with rootstrings in current EOT
> files (though, I'd assume that most EOT files with rootstrings also
> include XOR or MTX scrambling and would not be successfully loaded).

I'm under the impression that it's "all" rather than "most"; it would
be good to get somebody knowledgeable about ancient EOT history to
comment on this.

Regards,

T
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:34:54 GMT

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