RE: EOT-Lite File Format

Thursday, July 30, 2009 Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>:

Thomas Lord wrote:

>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.

Tab Atkins replied:

>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.

I see it the way Tab does. UAs MUST ignore non-nil rootstrings. EOT classic
will be dead as of >IE8. The new spec being Ex Post Facto. This seems in
line with what's been discussed all along.

Regards,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Thomas Lord
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:12 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org; John Daggett; www-font
Subject: RE: EOT-Lite File Format

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.


-t

>

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:01:26 UTC