Re: EOT-Lite File Format

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fink<> wrote:
> Thursday, July 30, 2009 Thomas Lord <>:
> 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
> 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.

Well, I think it's pretty likely that IE9 will still support EOT -
pages that are using EOT fonts now will 'break' without it.

Now, hopefully it will become *practically* dead at that point, as
everyone starts using the interoperable format.


Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:07:36 UTC