W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT-Lite File Format

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>
Message-Id: <1249058180.6160.47.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
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?

Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 16:37:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC