- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:51:22 +0000
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Tal Leming > Really? I remember a loose spec being posted to the list and then > heavily debated. I don't seem to recall seeing anything official or > definitive. On the other hand, WOFF has this: > > http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/woff-spec-latest.html > > Tal EOT is documented in a W3C submission. John's post describes the CWT subset adequately for an implementor. That it's so short is more a reflection of its simplicity than anything else. I'm confident there isn't much work left to define CWT. The only controversy has been around whether or not the EOT header version used should support rootstrings. A year ago EOT was unacceptable because of rootstrings and now we're being told it's useless without them. I'm sure that can be resolved fairly quickly though, and that's a minor change to both the spec and existing code.
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 17:52:07 UTC