W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: .webfont Proposal

From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:37:33 -0700
To: Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>
Cc: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1247171853.6773.62.camel@dell-desktop.example.com>
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 21:43 +0200, Erik van Blokland wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 9:33 PM, Thomas Lord wrote:
> 
> > Probably not today but yes, I can and will happily
> > do so.
> >
> > Will you please clarify the question a bit?  I
> > mean, what do you mean by "small example"?  Are
> > you asking for a sketch of what a file would contain?
> > Or mock-ups of a browser window?  Or...?  What
> > form of an answer would you like?
> 
> a sketch of a wrapped file would be useful, to give me an idea of the  
> syntax, language.


Oh, heck, that's easy.  I can do it today.  Please
understand that nothing in this sketch is claimed to be
valid MIME.  The claim is that the valid MIME "looks
a lot like this":


    MIME-version: 1.0
    Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="frontier"

    <html><meta>[...yadda yadda...]</meta>
      <body>
        [...human friendly text goes here with
         RDFa mark-up for licensing info ...
         c.f. W3C materials about ccREL and RDFa]
      </body>
    </html>
    --frontier
    Content-type: binary

    [raw font file goes here]

Basically, just prefix the HTML meta-data to a
font file, tossing in some MIME headers to keep
things unambiguous.

Is that enough detail?  In real life we need someone to
sit down for a day or three of work and robustify and
formalize that and then we need lots of eyes to review
it but it's basically that simple.

-t
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 20:38:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:02 GMT