W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:20:03 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908031320x61237bfbsdf848870c5f86f03@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Cc: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> 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"?

Sure.  It's compatible with EOTC in a specific, intended fashion.  It
is not 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.

No one's preventing you from rendering EOTC files.  If you get one,
render away.  But if you get an EOTL file, and you want to be
conforming, you must not render it unless it conforms to the specified

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 20:21:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC