- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:22:48 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 22:59 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sylvain Galineau >> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> 2. We recommend using 0x00020000 for EOTL files as that >> version has no rootstrings nor EUDC. This means step #2 checks >> for that value >> only. > > >> What do you mean "has no rootstrings"? You'd want IE (<=8) to process >> rootstrings contained in EOTL, to make it easier for authors to comply >> with font licensing. > > > That suggests a SHOULD requirement. UAs SHOULD ignore > non-nil root-strings but are not obligated to do so. > Authors can't count on them being ignored on the one > hand but UA makers are encouraged to ignore them > entirely. Nope, it has to be a MUST requirement - UAs MUST ignore non-nil rootstrings. IE <= 8 browsers will just be nonconforming (which is fine, since they were produced before this standard was produced), and authors can take advantage of that to hack something resembling same-origin into it if they wish. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:23:43 UTC