RE: Next step?

> From: [] 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:
> 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