Re: New work on fonts at W3C

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Robert O'Callahan<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> Anyway, your proposed EOT fragmentation is not comparable in practice. Since
> IE doesn't impose same-origin restrictions on EOT fonts, font vendors would
> probably insist on root strings in their fonts, so what's the point of
> supporting EOT-without-rootstrings?

Hmm.  That's a good point.  I can't think how to avoid that at the
moment.  There might be some way . . .

Still, any non-EOT solution means that web authors have to provide two
different font formats for (I'd guess) at least five to ten years,
until IE8 and earlier are negligible.  And that's even if IE9 supports
the new format.  It would be great if as many authors as possible
didn't have to provide a second format, given they already have to
provide EOT no matter what.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Levantovsky,
Vladimir<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
> This would be very desirable. I would support an EOT subset that eliminates root string in favor of same-origin restriction

Robert brings up a good point, though: IE doesn't support same-origin
restrictions for EOT, so font foundries most likely wouldn't allow EOT
to be used without RootStrings.  Can you think of any way around that?

> and I don't think that XOR obfuscation is really necessary if MTX decompression is universally supported by all browsers.

Well, surely neither of those is really necessary.  Even a plain EOT
with no XOR and no MTX can't be used on desktops without running it
through a tool, so that should be enough obfuscation, right?

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Mikko
Rantalainen<mikko.rantalainen@peda.net> wrote:
> It's important to notice that currently EOT has edge over other choices
> only because its already supported by Microsoft Internet Explorer(*).
> You cannot make up any new extension (standard or not) because it would
> not be supported by currently available Microsoft Internet Explorer.

You could, it would just have to be reverse-compatible.  Same as with
any standard, like all of CSS and HTML.

Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 14:34:36 UTC