- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:55:48 -0400
- To: "Thomas Lord" <lord@emf.net>, "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>, "John Daggett" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:43 PM Thomas Lord wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 20:15 -0700, Thomas Phinney wrote: > > I should point out that it was my suggestion that a browser could > > simply reject rendering of a font that had root strings. My reason > for > > suggesting that was Hakon's concern that a browser that simply > ignored > > the root string could open itself up to DMCA action or some such. > > That alone is justification for taking EOT-lite off > the table, if what you say sticks. That is why I ask > for a positive assertion that UAs should render even in > the face of a mis-matched non-nil rootstring. > As I understand what the current draft says (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/0780.html), the EOT-Lite conforming UA will render a font if it's capable to do so, regardless of the presence of rootstring (i.e. completely ignoring the root strings, whether mismatched or not). Other means, such as same-origin restrictions and CORS will be in place to prevent hot-linking, etc. Regards, Vladimir > -t > >
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:56:06 UTC