- From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:43:00 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: WOFF Working Group <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
I understand completely. I was only attempting to explain how there can be a perception among users of EOT that it is a lossy format. For a long time, WEFT was the only way to make an EOT (right?), and during that time, I would guess that many/most of the resulting EOTs were less than the original font. (I've never actually used WEFT, I'm just going on what I've heard about it, so feel free to correct me.) -C On Aug 26, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > This is what WEFT does; in no way is it required to generate a valid EOT file > that IE will load. The simplest EOT is just a binary header prefixed to the beginning > of a TTF. At some point in time those were referred to as 'EOT-Lite'. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Christopher Slye [mailto:cslye@adobe.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:24 PM >> To: Sylvain Galineau >> Cc: WOFF Working Group >> Subject: Re: Open Font License FAQ updated! >> >> 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
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 02:43:43 UTC