RE: Next step?

From: [] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan

CWT in its current form doesn't seem worth implementing. Since EOT files with rootstrings aren't conforming CWT fonts, Web authors would have to implement Referer checking for IE users in most CWT deployments. It would usually be easier for the author to just generate a WOFF file (or TTF file, if the license allows) and an EOT file with a rootstring and serve them both.

That they would have to do that is currently based on a set of assumptions around both licensing and the current definition of the CWT format, which is based on a rootstring-less header version. A WG would be the perfect place to discuss this. Given the passionate heat around rootstrings and the claim that they made ‘EOT-Full’ so unacceptable, I find it interesting that CWT is now deemed useless because it lacks them but as the format is not formally specified and we can do either while still being compatible with the IE installed base, I don’t think this is a conclusion that can be made at this point.

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:27:32 UTC