- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:45:06 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 02:06 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >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.
>
> The proposal is here.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0780.html
>
> There is no rootstring check.
>
> The header version proposed in the latest amendment has no rootstring.
>
> Last chance.
I'm confused because on the one hand you say there is
no rootstring and on the other you say that EULAs might
require the rootstring to be set so that older versions
of IE enforce a simulacrum of appropriate origin restrictions.
I would like a clear, positive statement that the intent
here is that a UA may come across a font file which
contains a non-nil root string, where that root string
does not match the URL of the page linking to that font, and that
the UA may then go ahead and render with that font anyway
without, in doing so, being non-conforming. This behavior
of a UA should not only be permissible, but suggested ("SHOULD").
"I don't believe in last chances,"
-t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 02:45:45 UTC