Re: EOT-Lite clarification

John Daggett wrote:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0737.html

I suspect your questions might be best answered by someone from 
Microsoft who was intimately involved with the development of the 
original EOT spec, and who can explain the reasons why the structure is 
as it is. [I'm bcc'ing this to such a person, in the hopes that he might 
contribute either directly or via Sylvain.]



One of the things I would like to see added to a future version of 
EOT/-Lite, presuming it can be done without breaking backwards 
compatibility, is an accurate summary of Unicode characters supported by 
the font. The Unicode range bits in the EOT header, duplicated from the 
font OS/2 table, are unreliable indicators.

John Hudson

Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 21:32:51 UTC