- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:36:20 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 08:12 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Vlad's got it. An EOTL file *has no rootstring*. Anywhere. All I am asking for is a positive assertion that if EOTL is recommended, then a conforming implementation may implement full EOT-classic support (while not honoring root strings or embedding bits) and whether this implementation may perform XOR de-encryption and/or MTX compression and decompression without fear of patents, accusations of being a circumvention device, or accusations of in any way being part of an act of contributory infringement. I understand that a well written EOTL processor will likely process at least some EOT classic files perfectly well. And yet the proposal says, in informal language "the font is not loaded". Between that and the existence of MTX in the wild the questions arise: is that "is not loaded" intended as MUST, SHOULD, or MAY? And is MTX patent relaxation part of the deal? -t
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 16:37:02 UTC