- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:01:55 +0000
- To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
>From: Thomas Lord [mailto:lord@emf.net]
>I'm confused...
Yes.
>
>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").
It has been repeatedly stated that the latest proposal is to limit
EOTL to a header version (2.0) that contains no rootstrings. Therefore,
a conforming EOTL client cannot possibly render a file with a rootstring
as they would have an older 2.1 or 2.2 headers. As such your question
is a non-issue.
Should we allow the other versions, there is no need for SHOULDs of
any kind and the answer should be clear.
>"I don't believe in last chances,"
That I do is all that matters.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:02:39 UTC