Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:

>
>
> *From:* rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> O'Callahan
> *Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2009 11:51 PM
> *To:* Levantovsky, Vladimir
> *Cc:* Thomas Lord; John Daggett; www-font
> *Subject:* Re: Fonts WG Charter feedback
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
> Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
>
>  I believe that the rationale for "EOT Lite" proposal is to create an
>
> easily implementable unified solution for font linking that enables web
> authors address millions (or billions) of users in a shortest possible
> period of time. I understand where you are coming from but, from a
> pragmatic point of view, I find "EOT Lite" proposal very practical. It
> eliminates all the concerns (such as root strings and font-specific
> compression) browser vendors expressed earlier, and creates a wrapper
> format that is easy to implement yet is backward compatible with older
> IE versions (which means we are not going to disenfranchise users who
> are still using those older IE browsers).
>
>
>
> We've already discussed the grave problems with this approach:
> -- If you want to serve a single font file to all browsers then it's hard
> to deploy because you need Referer checking, and it's unreliable because
> many users behind firewalls will not get the fonts.
> -- The possibility of rootstrings being present and honoured by some but
> not all browsers is an interop minefield, one that we'd be stuck with
> forever. It doesn't matter if your spec says they are uninterpreted bytes;
> some browsers interpret those bytes.
>
>
>
> I am afraid we may be talking about different things here. “EOT Lite”
> proposal is different from EOT version 1.0 we discussed earlier – it doesn’t
> have root strings, so there is no possibility for them being present to a
> browser, and it doesn’t assume any particular way of implementing access
> control, so same-origin restrictions and CORS would work with it just fine.
>

If "EOT Lite" fonts are to work in IE <= 8, then they must have the problems
I described. Authors will need to implement Referer checking, otherwise
fonts linked across domains will work in IE. And rootstring data will be
treated differently by different browsers, if it is present, even though you
say it shouldn't be.

It's simpler and better for there to be two formats for the interim, have
> authors serve two font files, and in the long run converge on the new
> format.
>
>
>
> With the problem being that the majority of fonts today cannot be licensed
> for such use. It makes it very important for us to converge on the new
> format sooner rather than later, and I would ask you to take another look
> and consider if either “EOT Lite” or Thomas Lord “generic wrapper” proposal
> would be something you can support.
>

Ascender's original proposal was something I could support.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]