Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> 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
> W3C.

There are no rights being managed in any way.  Rejecting a file
because it's formatted incorrectly is *not* DRM, and it's ridiculous
to assert otherwise.


Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:30:02 UTC