- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:34:15 -0700
- To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> If compatibility with legacy user agents (MSIE) is not required, The entire reason for considering this format is compatibility with legacy user agents; it is a requirement of the spec. > The OpenType font data can be extended with additional tables to contain > any meta information about the font as needed by font author/distributor. This is true, and of course true of any other format one might consider. (Though for formats which act as a wrapper and explicitly have some other place to put the data, external to the font file proper, one might argue that duplicating the new wrapper info in the font is a Bad Idea.) > In the end, any EOT classic font without XOR or MTX scrambling I am of the impression that no pre-existing EOT classic fonts would meet that requirement. Somebody could create new or revised EOT fonts specifically with these restrictions in mind, however. > Cons: > > - Undermines the "protection" provided with rootstrings in current EOT > files (though, I'd assume that most EOT files with rootstrings also > include XOR or MTX scrambling and would not be successfully loaded). I'm under the impression that it's "all" rather than "most"; it would be good to get somebody knowledgeable about ancient EOT history to comment on this. Regards, T
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:34:54 UTC