- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:47:50 -0400
- To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Kew" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:34 AM Aryeh Gregor wrote: > > 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? > Like I said, I believe font foundries would be open to constructive discussion, and I would trust the experts would be able to come up with the solution that can resolve the issue in mutually-agreeable fashion. > > 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? > Yes, although I believe many people agreed that having fonts compressed is always a benefit to users, especially if the compression is free. And, there is sufficient base of authors who already use compressed EOT fonts - supporting MTX would allow other browsers compete with IE in those markets. > 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 17:48:24 UTC