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

RE: EOT-Lite File Format v.1.1

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:35:40 +0000
To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E02138709@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of Thomas Lord

>You say "an EOTL-only implementation will treat any EOT
>files with rootstrings as invalid since the header version
>number will be != 0x00020000"."
>I presume you would say that a file with the XOR or MTX
>bit set would also be "treated as invalid".


>The question arises because, technologically, it is a
>fairly trivial matter for a UA to treat the invalid EOTL
>as a font which can be rendered.  A reasonable UA,
>recognizing that such files are found "in the wild", might
>choose to go ahead and render with the font - decompressing
>from MTX if necessary and ignoring a non-nil root string
>if necessary, disregarding (or recognizing) the non-EOTL
>version number.

This UA would be a non-conforming EOT implementation. If
anyone wants to do that (no idea why) I can't stop them.

>Yet there is a concern here that a UA which does so
>may be accused of violating one or more patents,
>of being a part of contributory infringement, or perhaps
>even being a circumvention device.

Which are among the reasons why EOT was rejected and we
came up with EOTL. Was that unclear ?

>Therefore I (and I guess Tab) are asking for a positive
>assertion both here and in any eventual Recommendation
>that a UA is free to treat such "invalid" EOTL in the
>manner I described - decompressing, ignoring root string,
>rendering, and so forth - without risking violating a
>patent or being accused of contributory infringement or
>being a circumvention device.

If one could make such an assertion, why would we bother with
EOTL in the first place ? No one here can make that assertion
except the patent holders and anyone who might claim such a
circumvention occurred.

What I can assert is that no rootstring can be circumvented in
the current EOTL proposal since they cannot even be stored in
the file, and that any file using Monotype's patented technology
must be rejected.

Ultimately, I do not see why an EOTL format spec would ever
need or want to state that a UA is free to implement what parts
of EOT it likes and ignore the parts it doesn't.

I'll let Tab explain what he means and answer him. This thread
is closed.
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 18:36:23 UTC

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