RE: Merits and deficiencies of EOT Lite

> From: [] On
> Behalf Of John Daggett

> Sorry Karsten, this doesn't change the fact that EOT-Lite will not give
> you backward compatibility with CFF fonts in IE and backward
> compatibility
> is the main argument behind the apparent rush to support EOT-Lite.
> This and other problems with Windows GDI rendering of CFF fonts
> affects all browsers. We could all switch to something else just as
> Safari gives users the option, not on by default, to render using
> Apple's own font rasterizer. It would be far better for all involved
> to fix the default platform rendering issues.

I don't understand how any of the existing format proposals would yield
"backward-compatibility with CFF-Fonts in IE" ? Since no file format can  fix GDI
or OS issues, I'm not sure I understand how this can be held against EOT-Lite in particular.
And what backward-compatibility ? It seems the capability is currently missing for all
browsers (modulo Safari enabled to use Apple's rasterizer) and all CFF Fonts. What am I missing ?

I don't understand EOT-Lite's backward-compatibility benefit to be about CFF. It is about being able
to license commercial fonts in a format that can be loaded by a large proportion of today's browsers.
From what I read here, CFFs may not render as expected in browsers that depend on Uniscribe. As they
will all fail the same, then all work the same when the issue is fixed by Windows, what is the compatibility
issue that is specific to EOT-Lite ?

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 20:17:20 UTC