Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

On Mon, 2009-08-03 at 15:20 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:

> > 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"?

> Nope.

The cognitive dissonance is pretty overwhelming.
It looks, walks, and quacks like a new version 
of the format, but it is not a new version of the
format.  Honestly, I'm not sure I love Big Brother
quite that much.  Color me "doubleplusskeptical".

> >> 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 that is the case, then we should be able to 
agree that an EOTL Recommendation should include 
the MTX patent protection and declare that UAs
"SHOULD" support EOTC while ignoring protection

> 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
> format.

The dictum "be tolerant in what you receive" suggests


Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 20:28:57 UTC