RE: fsType and embedding information

To clarify, I was not referring to your comment but to: 

"But that one explanation, I do think is necessary because of the 
unfortunate precedence of EOT and its conflating of document embedding 
and web font linking."

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2010AprJun/0142.html

What EOT did has no relevance to WOFF. If this issue needs to be 
clarified, the reasons to do so should be related and relevant
to WOFF and WOFF only.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Berlow
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:38 AM
> To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: fsType and embedding information
> 
> Sylvain> I am at a loss to understand why WOFF needs to clarify
> anything EOT did or did not do.
> 
> It is not, IMHO, the clarification of EOT that is sought, but rather
> the clarification of the meaning of the embedding bits, as may be
> contained in a WOFF enwrapped font.
> 
> EOT purloined those meanings from an existing use and redefined the
> phrase "embed in" to mean "link to." So, we want the WOFF
> specification to say that the wrapped font's embedding bits have
> nothing to do with linking rights.
> 
> As you wish, this has nothing to do with EOT and it was not mentioned
> in my edit.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David Berlow
> 
>

Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 03:50:54 UTC