- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:54:22 +0100
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, December 8, 2010, 9:29:53 PM, David wrote: DS> how about picking a Unicode code that displays an obvious DS> 'failure-like' indication (like X) if fall-back is to a normal DS> font, putting 'monospaced' in the fallback list, and saying that DS> pass is indicated by 'Pass' and that 'Fail' or 'X' mean failure? Well, effectively that is what the tests are doing. Test can be classified into two types - valid woff, if the font is loaded, its a pass - invalid woff, the font is loaded its a fail. The actual test XHTML has the letter "P". The first category has a glyph that looks like "PASS" in the must load font, for the character P; and a glyph that looks like "FAIL" in the fallback. The second category has a glyph that looks like "FAIL" in the must not load font, for the character P; and a glyph that looks like "PASS" in the fallback. DS> On Dec 8, 2010, at 14:16 , Tal Leming wrote: >> On Dec 8, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: >>> I would suggest to also add TTF font as one of the fallback options for those cases when the underlying system doesn't render CFF. >> That should be easy enough to do. >>> We may also want to consider using WOFF TTF fonts for these tests. >> The valid WOFFs are in both CFF (001, 002, 003, 004) and TTF (005, 006, 007, 008) flavors. The rest of the test cases use the CFF source because I'm more familiar with those table structures. >> Tal DS> David Singer DS> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 20:54:27 UTC