Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

We get to the heart of the matter!

On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 14:14 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:

> > An EOTC file with a non-nil rootstring has a
> > version number distinct from EOTLs and apparently
> > an EOTL processor MUST reject that file.
> If it only support EOTLs, yes.  If it supports EOTC as well, it must
> process it as an EOTC file, *not* an EOTL, if it wants to be
> conforming.
> I have no idea how this is opposite, or even relevant to, what I said, though.

Then the version number, the XOR bit, and the MTX
bit in an EOTL file serve as a DRM mechanism.
That is why consensus and passage over Objections
is unlikely.  It would be a very bad precedent for


Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:23:24 UTC