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

Re: EOT-Lite File Format 1.2 (was RE: EOT & DMCA concerns)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 10:44:12 +0200
Message-ID: <1352801672.20090805104412@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 4, 2009, 10:28:31 PM, Tab wrote:

TAJ> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Levantovsky,
TAJ> Vladimir<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
>> Introducing the new version number for EOT-Lite and requiring all EOT-Lite compliant implementations to support the new files with version number *only* should eliminate any concerns about hypothetical presence of rootstrings in padding, IMO. We define a new format with no notion of rootstrings, and the new version number provides a clear way to differentiate any and all prior EOT formats and the new EOT-Lite.

TAJ> I can see Sylvain's point.  EOTL1.1 is a strict subset of EOT-Classic,
TAJ> that is to say, there are some files which are both valid EOTL1.1
TAJ> *and* EOTC, and can validly be parsed as either.  The way EOTL1.1 is
TAJ> set up, though, there shouldn't be any legal issues arising from
TAJ> accidentally parsing an EOTL1.1 as an EOTC, or vice versa.

Which is a strong point in favour of the proposal.

TAJ> EOTLwrip is a different story, which is why the different version
TAJ> number is a necessity.  It's a requirement for practical legal reasons
TAJ> that an EOTLwrip consumer be able to recognize and reject any and all
TAJ> EOT-with-rootstrings files (if it wishes - it's always allowed to
TAJ> support EOT-with-rootstrings as well if it wants).

I don't really see that EOTwrip add anything except confusion. Its EOTL except that it has an opaque must-ignore block that looks to a court and to an existing implementation like an access restriction.

TAJ> So Sylvain's basically saying that the different version number isn't
TAJ> required for EOTL1.1, but it would be if they changed the EOTL
TAJ> proposal to be based on one of the EOT-with-rootstring formats.

Which therefore means that the version number should stay at 1.1.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 08:45:07 UTC

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