Re: RFC: EOTL font file specification version 1

> 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.



Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 17:34:54 UTC