- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:53:59 -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 01:44 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net] > > > >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. > > First, there is no rootstring check. Currently, a > conforming EOTL client does not know anything about > rootstrings. EOTL generators *may* know. The EOTL proposal says "is not loaded" if the root string is non-nil. That's a rootstring check. It is very distinct from ignoring the rootstring, at least as stated. If you are saying that the *intention* was to simply ignore the rootstring and the proposal was malformed in that regard, that's great - but I'd like to hear that from the source rather than taking your word for it. -t > > EOT clients of course do. > > Second, the current EOT header version does not include > any rootstring space. It doesn't exist. > > Let us stick to what is known and relevant here.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 01:54:38 UTC