- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:53:55 -0500
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> 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.
>>
>> 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").
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.
~TJ
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 02:54:56 UTC