Re: EOT-Lite File Format

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan<> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Thomas Phinney <>
> wrote:
>> No offense to the Ascender folks, but I don't think you can assume
>> *any* single foundry is representative of other foundries when it
>> comes to licensing details at the level you're looking for. The
>> industry (the very phrase may be misleading) isn't that cohesive!
> Alright, someone please collect the data and report back. Thanks.
>> *If* the EULA is flexible enough to accept *either* root strings or
>> referrer checking, I wouldn't want to make any assumption about that
>> authors will prefer, one or the other.
> Referer checking sucks really badly. You have to configure your server with
> modules or scripting or whatnot; if you can only upload files, you're toast.
> And even once you've got that working, your users behind Referer-stripping
> firewalls are left high and dry.

Well, in that case, I can imagine that foundries (who know all this)
wouldn't go down that path.

So, from a foundry perspective, if they want to offer something that
will be pretty functional, they'd be asking for EOTL for new clients,
and classic EOT (including root strings) for old clients... unless
they were willing to just have EOT-without-root-strings and no other
origin restrictions for old IE.

I could do some polling of foundries, but as I consider it, it seems
to me that foundries like root strings anyway, so if the spec
infrastructure allows the possibility, yeah, sure, they'll be very
happy to be able to continue to have root strings in the legacy IE
situation, even if they are ignored by EOTL-friendly browsers.


Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 01:43:30 UTC