Re: EOT-Lite File Format

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> 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.
>> 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").

A conforming UA MUST ignore the rootstring.  Phrased probably a little
better it MUST treat certain parts of the header (specified precisely
by people who know the details a little better than me, informally
being everything that isn't explicitly checked) as meaningless padding
and MUST NOT take any action based on information from those sections
of the header.


Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 02:54:56 UTC