On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 10:42:53 PM, Robert wrote: ROC> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: ROC> ROC> That they would have to do that is currently based on a set of ROC> assumptions around both licensing and the current definition of ROC> the CWT format, which is based on a rootstring-less header version. ROC> Right. I argued on this very list that for this reason, it ROC> should be possible for EOT fonts containing a rootstring to also ROC> be valid CWT fonts (although the rootstring would be "padding ROC> data" as far as CWT is concerned), but to no effect (so far). A CWT font with no rootstring has fairly clear implementation obligations. An EOT font with a rootstring has murky enforcement obligations. A CWT font that is allowed to contain a rootstring in the binary padding seems like the worst of both worlds, and I would not like to stand up in court and defend either the design, or have a jury try to divine the font creators' intentions, from that case. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CGReceived on Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:42:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:42:17 GMT