Re: Next step?

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 10:42:53 PM, Robert wrote:

ROC> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Sylvain Galineau <> wrote:
ROC>   That they would have to do that is currently based on a set of
ROC> assumptions around both licensing and the current definition of
ROC> the CWT format, which is based on a rootstring-less header version.

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

A CWT font with no rootstring has fairly clear implementation obligations.

An EOT font with a rootstring has murky enforcement obligations.

A CWT font that is allowed to contain a rootstring in the binary padding seems like the worst of both worlds, and I would not like to stand up in court and defend either the design, or have a jury try to  divine the font creators' intentions, from that case. 

 Chris Lilley          
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:42:17 UTC