Re: EOT and EOT-based proposals

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>  So, let's talk details.

It seems that the positions are:
Microsoft: No OTF/TTF; Yes EOT or "EOT Lite"
Mozilla: Yes OTF/TTF; No EOT or "EOT Lite"
Apple/WebKit: Yes OTF/TTF(; No EOT or "EOT Lite"?)
Opera: Yes OTF/TTF(; No EOT or "EOT Lite"?)

So we have three vendors in favor of OTF/TTF with Mozilla, at least, 
insisting that it be available. We have Microsoft having the opposite 
position that OTF/TTF should *not* be available on the Web while 
supporting their existing format, EOT or an EOT-compatible derivative.

If Mozilla, Apple, and Opera implement EOT, that essentially kills 
OTF/TTF on the Web since Microsoft will have no incentive or interest to 
implement it. On the other hand, if Microsoft implements OTF/TTF, that 
will effectively kill EOT for the same reasons.

That seems to kill any chance of EOT being implemented elsewhere; I 
don't see how you can reconcile those positions without other vendors 
giving in to Microsoft (and saying RIP to OTF/TTF) or Microsoft giving 
in to the other vendors (where they might be able to get a concession 

The only other compromise left seems to be to create a new format and 
have all the vendors agree to that, but I've seen very little discussion 
on OTW or other new formats essentially meaning that this group has made 
pretty much no progress so far.

Mozilla has stated the most willingness to implement another format, it 
looks like, but that's kind of useless without commitment from Microsoft 
since Microsoft is the party central to the issue here.

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>  First, are there any legal issues preventing any of the other
>  browsers (particularly Firefox with its GPL obligations) from
>  implementing EOT? I don't believe there is any, but I want to make
>  absolutely sure.

I believe someone mentioned wanting to see the patent license while the 
patent holder refuses to incur expenses for writing such a license until 
someone commits to implementing EOT. So, presumably, that depends on 
what the as-of-yet unwritten license says.

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>  Second, according to some remarks by Chris Wilson, an EOT font with
>  no rootstring should work fine in legacy IEs.  A no-rootstring EOT
>  seems to be a very basic obfuscation proposal, which is at least
>  somewhat accepted among the current players.  Is this true?

Could you kindly show me where this is "somewhat accepted among the 
current players" (i.e., browser vendors excluding Microsoft)? 
Unfortunately, I think I missed those messages.

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>  Third, can we add same-origin restrictions to EOT?  These obviously
>  wouldn't do anything with legacy IE versions, but it *would* be
>  interoperable with all new versions of all browsers.

Doesn't this create another one of those situations where the browser 
that ignores the standard renders things "better" resulting in the 
non-compliant browser gaining more market share (and hence why certain 
vendors have refused to implement certain standards)? This is more 
interesting considering Microsoft's Compatibility View, which, 
presumably, would render the page without these restrictions (and, thus, 
"better") even if Microsoft committed to implementing it in a later version.

— Patrick Garies

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 06:37:05 UTC