- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:26:23 -0700
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 16:56 -0700, John Hudson wrote: > Tab wrote: > I kind of assumed that EOTL clients would check for nil rootstrings, and > that a non-nil rootstring would make it an invalid EOTL. The maxim "Be tolerant in what you receive, strict in what you transmit" applies here. According to that maxim, a Recommendation MUST NOT say "MUST NOT render" on the flimsy excuse of a non-nil root string - but a Recommendation probably SHOULD say "MUST render" for the case of a nil root string. > Whatever else it is, an EOT Lite font is a font with a nil rootstring > [at the moment, it is also a font with no compression, but I'm really > hoping that we can get this to a working group stage and satisfy > Monotype's criteria for releasing the MTX patented compression]. [amen to your [...]] -t > Font makers are going to be licensing fonts for EOTL format linking, not > EOT linking. And most of those makers, I suspect, will also be providing > the EOTL files to the customer. Microsoft's original EOT model, whereby > which the web author created his own .EOT files from TTFs only made > sense because of the rootstrings and content-specific subsetting, > particular to the use of the font on specific websites. Since there are > no rootstrings in EOTL, and content-specific subsetting is no longer > viable since web content is now a lot more dynamic than it was in 1990, > I anticipate .EOTL -- or any other web font format -- being primarily a > delivery format from font makers to licensees of web fonts.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:27:03 UTC