- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:35:01 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:16 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf > >Of Thomas Lord > > > >I think we have a problem there. What you describe > >is a DRM-via-standards mechanism - the very problem > >that EOT-lite supposedly cures. This is probably > >a minor problem rather than one that needs to cause > >a split (is my take on the tone and content of the > >discussion). > > > > What DRM ? For what client ? An EOTL-conforming client > has no rootstring checking to perform. None. Existing > IE is not an EOTL-conforming client, but an EOT client.... I understand you, Sylvain, to be saying something different from what the Ascender proposal says. You seem to me to be saying: "clients just ignore the root string... it's a dummy field." The proposal seems to say that if that dummy field is non-empty, the font "is not" rendered. It's unclear to me what the informal "is not" corresponds to in the formal language of a Recommendation. There's murk and mud there. Let's clear it up. -t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:35:41 UTC