W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

RE: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:52:02 +0000
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E021331A3@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
>Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:35 PM

>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.

Which would still not constitute DRM. It's a simple
validation step.

John's proposal does not check the rootstring. It
ignores it.

And as the latest proposal chooses an EOT format version that
has no rootstring in the file whatsoever, there is
nothing to check even if you want to.

I know Roc and Vlad want the rootstring version of the header
to ensure the possibility of enforcing origin restrictions with
the IE installed base. But given that we've claimed rootstrings
to be impractical, I can't quite resolve the contradiction.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:52:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC