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

Re: WOFF spec comments (was Re: Metadata Questions)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:51:36 +0100
Message-ID: <1192007484.20101110205136@w3.org>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
CC: WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 6:03:06 PM, Vladimir wrote:

LV> 2. Clause 6, par. 4 (Extended metadata block)
LV> The last sentence of the paragraph 4 says "If the metadata block
LV> is not followed by a private data block, it MUST either be padded
LV> with null bytes to the next 4-byte boundary, or contain no
LV> additional padding after the end of the block."
LV> It needs to be revised - it seems to say that the last block MUST
LV> either be padded or not padded. (which one is true?)

I read it as saying there can be at most 0..3 bytes of padding, but no more; and that any padding must only be sufficient to take it to the next longword boundary.

I seem to recall discussion that the OT spec required padding between tables but was silent or ambiguous about padding after the last table.


LV> 3. Clause 7, par 2 (Private Data block)
LV> Same as above - the last sentence needs to be revised.


LV> 4. Clause 4 "Table Directory"
LV> Par. 5 - the last two sentence appear to be testable assertions
LV> for user agents that are not marked as such.

Agreed.

LV> The text of par. 10 used to be a note.

Yes; but its no longer a note because its now the definition of (some)  characteristics of a well formed input file, so normative.




-- 
 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, 10 November 2010 19:51:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:51:40 GMT