W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

RE: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:37:54 -0800
To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5D97C7EB4695104AB6345E56FE356B1935CC2889FC@NA-EXMSG-C125.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I had not - so thank you - but I am not sure this answers my much more modest and general question. Let me retry.

Beyond raw TT/OT and a compressed version of them, a new font format could well emerge five years from now. Are user agents supposed to sniff the content returned by the server to figure out which flavor the font is encoded in, or should HTTP headers provide that information ? What is the most consistent wrt other resource types ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: d.crossland@gmail.com [mailto:d.crossland@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Dave Crossland
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:47 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal
>
> 2008/11/11 Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>:
> >
> > The font-face declaration will be the same whether the
> > font data is raw or 'embedded'. Would MIME types help or be advisable
> ?
>
> Have you seen http://basiscraft.com/eot-reasons.html which proposes
> MIME types as a general purposes to some of the issues EOT raises, at
> http://basiscraft.com/notices.html ? :-)

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 18:38:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT