Re: FW: EOT-Lite File Format

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:07 PM, John Hudson<> wrote:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
>>> An EOTL Recommendation that does not encourage
>>> EOTC support with rootstrings ignored effectively
>>> endorses the use of rootstrings as a UA-enforced
>>> form of DRM.
>> Right - when we say "EOTC files with rootstrings should be ignored" we
>> mean that the FILE should be ignored - flushed, as John Hudson
>> poetically calls it - and not merely the rootstring.
> But that's not what Tom Lord means by 'ignored'. You and I agree, Dave, that
> fonts with rootstrings should be flushed, i.e. non-IE browsers should make
> no attempt to display them. What Tom is suggesting is reckless legal
> endangerment: ignore the rootstring and display the font anyway.

I don't see that the EOTL spec needs to even deal with this. It deals
with EOTL fonts. What browsers decide to do with EOTC fonts is a
distinct question and one that individual browser vendors can deal
with on their own.



Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:13:58 UTC