- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:13:50 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 14:38 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Um, no. EOTC is not an earlier version of EOTL. EOTL1.1 is > completely independent; it currently refers interested parties to the > EOTC spec to give some historical basis for the padding sections. > > IE does not render EOTL files, it renders EOTC files. The EOTL format > is just created in such a way that (nonconformant) legacy IEs > interpret them in such a way. Future IEs, and other browsers, will > correctly distinguish between the two formats. Do I understand you correctly if I think you are saying, in effect: "EOTL is downward compatible (by design) with existing EOTC processors while it also has certain bits to distinguish EOTL from EOTC -- but in spite of that we don't call it a `new version' of EOTC"? More succinctly, are you saying that it is not a new version of EOTC "in name only"? > You also haven't addressed just what rights are being managed by > ensuring that a file is formatted correctly before attempting to > render it. The right to render an EOTC file. -t
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 20:14:31 UTC