Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 5:29 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure that I understand what the concern is about font EULA
> licenses. Font vendors are either going to license their fonts to be used
> with EOTL or they are not, and if they do so it makes no sense to do so in a
> way that presents practical problems for authors to use those fonts.
>

> As I understand the current EOTL proposal, it uses a version number that
> does not include rootstrings in the font header. Since the version number
> needs to checked in order to determine that this is a valid EOTL, what is
> the worry that a font will contain rootstrings and the user agent will need
> to make some kind of choice about that to do in that case? It seems to me
> very simple: a font that is a version of EOT that might contain a rootstring
> is not a valid EOTL font and should not be loaded by an EOTL conformant user
> agent.
>
> Font makers are going to need to figure out what kind of license terms are
> appropriate for web fonts, and I suspect that many of them are waiting to
> see what the format looks like first. At the moment, I suspect many of them
> don't even know what the options are.
>

OK.

The current "EOT-Lite 1.1" that John Daggett described in his email of a few
days ago is not compatible with authors using rootstrings to control font
access when loaded as an EOT-Classic font by IE<=8. It's now up to Web
authors and font vendors to work out if that format is useful to them. I
guess we'll just have to wait for that feedback to arrive.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]