RE: EOT-Lite File Format v.1.1

>From: Tab Atkins Jr. []

>That is indeed what I had missed.  I was still running under the
>assumption that the rootstring bytes could be present, but were merely
>classified as padding in EOTL.  My question is invalid if even the EOT
>version of the header (where that 'padding' is meaningful data) can't
>contain rootstrings.
>Thanks, Sylvain.

Yeah. I've stated about a dozen times the current proposal stores no rootstrings but
since Lord was of course the main recipient it was most likely - and wisely -
skipped as part of the persistent background noise :)

If you look at the original submission, section 3.1 describes the header in question.
(There is a typo though so replace 0x00010000 with 0x00020000). Notice the absence
of rootstring space. This means an implementation conforming to John's latest draft
could never be alleged of circumventing a rootstring. Just like no implementation
conforming to the same proposal could be alleged to infringe on Monotype's patent
since they are required to fail if the file is compressed.

Vlad and Roc, however, have stated their preference for preserving the rootstring option
for IE use only e.g. to allow authors to comply with EULA same-origin mandates. As
I don't have EULAs to look at, and the very impractical nature of rootstrings was one
of the main arguments against the EOT restriction model, the feature is effectively gone
for the time being. Not just disabled or ignored but absent.

Of course, this means that IE<=8 may enable hotlinking if server-side measures similar
to those used for other resource types are not in place. I'm looking into what checks,
if any, were done for this version of the format...


Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 20:11:49 UTC