- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 06:22:33 +0000
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Yes, this definitely seems contradictory. I think we had agreed that the extension element was the only extension point so this would reflect both this agreement and what came before it. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tal Leming > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 6:42 PM > To: WOFF Working Group FONT > Subject: Metadata Contridiction > > Hello WG, > > I'm working on the WOFF validator and I've come across two testable > assertions in the spec that don't seem to square up with each other: > > http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#conform-metadata-schemavalid > > If the extended metadata does not match this schema, it is invalid. > > > http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#conform-metadata- > extensionelements > > In addition, vendors MAY include additional types of metadata as new > elements within the metadata element, or as additional attributes of > the elements specified here. > > Am I missing something or are these contradicting each other? Should > the second statement make it clear that the only way to extend the > metadata is with the extension element? > > Tal
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 06:23:08 UTC