W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > November 2010

RE: Metadata Contridiction

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>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E287CE4C3@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 4 November 2010 06:23:08 GMT