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

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

From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:47:07 +0000
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Message-Id: <A66E65D2-6F43-4798-9E4E-CFDA03DE3D1C@gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>

On 10 Nov 2010, at 20:52, Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 9:40:52 PM, John wrote:
> 
> JD> Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
>>> I seem to recall discussion that the OT spec required padding
>>> between tables but was silent or ambiguous about padding after the
>>> last table.
> 
> JD> I should point out here that the OT spec doesn't *require*
> JD> padding, it merely recommends it.
> 
> JD> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/recom.htm
> 
> Thanks for the correction. "It is suggested" is pretty weak, especially followed by a 'should'.
> 

There's stronger language elsewhere in the spec:

Quote: "Note: This function implies that the length of a table must be a multiple of four bytes. In fact, a font is not considered structurally proper without the correct padding. All tables must begin on four byte boundries, and any remaining space between tables is padded with zeros."

(http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/otff.htm)

JK
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:48:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 November 2010 21:48:14 GMT