- From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:54:18 -0400
- 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>
Thursday, October 22, 2009 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>: See Daggett's posting from Tuesday July 28th, 2009 to this list which has a "description" of the EOT-Lite font wrapper. Also see the EOT submission to the W3C. EOT Lite was implemented in a special edition of FF's nightly "Minefield" builds. The info to do that came from somewhere, presumably. Rich -----Original Message----- From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tal Leming Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:59 PM To: Tab Atkins Jr. Cc: Erik van Blokland; www-font Subject: Re: Next step? On Oct 22, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> WOFF and CWT still need full specs, >> >> I think you'll find WOFF has a spec, but CWT hasn't? > > CWT has at least as full of a spec as WOFF does, I believe - it was > defined in its current form by Daggett. 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
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 17:54:53 UTC