- From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:23:36 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: WOFF Working Group <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Well, isn't it true that most real-world cases of EOT (i.e. WEFT-produced) result in some subsetting? Seems to me that EOT can be lossless, but often isn't -- whereas WOFF is necessarily lossless. -C On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland > > >> Question: 2.3 What about other webfont formats such as >> EOT/EOTLite/CWT/etc.? >> >> Answer: In most cases these formats alter the original font data more >> than WOFF, and do not completely support appropriate metadata, so >> their use must be considered modification and RFNs may not be used. > > It's true that EOT does not have WOFF's metadata support, claiming that > EOT alters the original font data more than WOFF is puzzling. Surely, > prepending a header to the original file and compressing the whole thing > is less of an alteration of the font data proper than extracting each > table and compressing each individually. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 21:24:09 UTC