- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:40:57 -0500
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>, 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 6:36 PM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> 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. > > That would be my inclination too, insofar as other than maintaining data > structure for backwards compatibility with EOT, there is no reason for a > place to put rootstrings to exist in the EOT Lite spec at all: the whole > point of EOT Lite is that it doesn't include rootstrings. So it makes sense > to say that an EOT Lite conforming browser must ignore non-nil rootstrings. > > This presumes, of course, that a browser is able to distinguish in the wild > between an EOT Lite font and and older EOT font. Is this going to be > reliably possible? There are existing EOT fonts linked to websites targeting > IE<=8, and what happens when a new EOT Lite conforming browser tries to > display one of these websites? If the EOT file also qualifies as a valid EOTL file (which is very possible), then it gets displayed. If not, it doesn't, just like any other random blob of data that doesn't comprise a recognized font format. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:41:56 UTC