- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:38:28 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 00:30 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf > >Of John Hudson > > > >Really? It seems to me that it is simply chucking something that it > >considers an invalid file. > > Agree. All EOTL involves for a client are a few validation steps before > using the embedded payload. This is routine done for many content types. > > If that's DRM.... A browser, X, is presented with a perfectly render-able EOT font that happens to have a non-nil root string. The prohibition "must not render" in that case is either DRM or so close to DRM that costly court battles can be anticipated for the implementer who disregards the restriction. -t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:39:11 UTC