RE: EOT-Lite File Format

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
(, 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.


> -t

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 03:56:06 UTC