Re: EOT-Lite File Format v.1.1

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 16:42 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 20:11 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > The very fact that you have to replace the
>> > version number is proof that the rootstring
>> > space has not been eliminated but merely
>> > compressed.   No future extension of EOTL
>> > can reasonably use the 0x10000 version number
>> > unless that future extension is EOT (sans
>> > honoring root string restrictions).
>> Thomas, what are you *talking* about?  I am completely unable to get
>> anything sensical out of this post.
> EOTL is not "out of nowhere".  A reasonable
> EOTL implementation, being "tolerant in what
> it receives", will process some EOT fonts.
> Conversely, an unreasonable Recommendation would
> require that implementations ensure that
> if a font file is EOT (not EOTL) that they
> "MOST NOT" render it.  I am seeking clarification
> that we are not steering towards a draft
> proposal of that unreasonable sort.

Currently, the EOTL spec proposed piggybacks on an EOT version that
does not and never did have rootstrings.  If your file has
rootstrings, it's impossible for it to be a valid EOTL under the
current proposal, as it is based on a different and incompatible
version of EOT.  This was clarified by Sylvain earlier today.

> I believe in the sanctity of the standards
> process.  I think that the concerns of current
> implementers and other parties are secondary
> to the logical structure and long term implications
> of the standard.  I am seeking clarification on
> these issues in the spirit of protecting that
> logical structure and long term view.
> Aside from Sylvain's comments, I expected
> and have so far seen that my goals are not
> a problem for the other stake holders.  I
> wish to encourage making that more formally
> explicit. I don't really have any clue what
> Sylvain is doing, unless I draw quite unkind
> conclusions about him.

I'm glad that you're pursuing these questions - it was your question
in another thread that made me pose my question earlier today.  After
some initial confusion on both sides due to incorrect assumptions,
Sylvain answered very clearly and sensibly.

You are not being persecuted.  You are not being run around or misled.
 You and I are asking approximately the same questions, but I'm
actually getting answers to my questions because I'm not immediately
jumping to the conclusion that someone's lying or trying to confuse
me.  Please just chill - your aims are admirable but your current
approach is not useful.

(And just in case you think I'm part of Sylvain's conspiracy, I
generally hate IE.  I've gotten angry enough to cause physical harm to
myself *twice* due to frustration at some IE bug that I was having
trouble working around.  (I just recovered from the second one two
weeks ago...)  I'm still angry that they won't support TTF, and would
dance with joy if I heard tomorrow that everyone on the planet had
switched away from IE.  All that being said, Sylvain's been great
through this whole thing, EOTL is the best proposal available for
quick font interop, and the whole thing is shaping up to be something
useful and uncontroversial.)


Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 23:21:32 UTC