- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:01:52 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 21:53 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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. As I said, you are braver than I am in that regard. My thought was SHOULD rather than MUST so that older IE gets retroactive conformance (else what's the point of EOT-lite at all?). > > ~TJ
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:02:37 UTC