Re: Next step?

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Sylvain Galineau <>wrote:

> 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.

Right. I argued on this very list that for this reason, it should be
possible for EOT fonts containing a rootstring to also be valid CWT fonts
(although the rootstring would be "padding data" as far as CWT is
concerned), but to no effect (so far).

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

I feel perfectly consistent in saying that rootstring processing is an
unacceptable requirement, but that it would be expedient for fonts that IE
already does rootstring processing on to be valid CWT fonts.

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.

My conclusion is that CWT as it exists today should not be a requirement.
Obviously if CWT changes in major ways that conclusion may become obsolete.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah

Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 20:43:28 UTC