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

Re: .webfont Proposal 2

From: Dirk Pranke <dpranke@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:32:03 -0700
Message-ID: <3726d1bf0907151932r3c526dedx5f61bfd0d169e19f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>, Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Thomas Lord<lord@emf.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 21:06 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>> >With all due respect to Bert Bos, I hope that
>> >you will instead reconsider using MIME.   For
>> >most practical purposes, you can regard MIME
>> >format as a compressible "directory archive"
>> >so most reasons you might have for choosing a
>> >file archive format are also reasons for choosing
>> >MIME.
>
>> Many successful file archive formats do not choose MIME e.g. JAR files, which
>> bind together binary files together with one or more manifests and XML descriptors.
>
> Yes (and, I'm aware of that).
>

I'm not aware of any use cases where someone does use MIME as a mechanism for
one part marking up another, except perhaps in the case of MHT (which
I don't think is
a good analogy here, because the relationship is inverted).

Can you point to other precedents for your approach? If you have done
so already
and I've forgotten, I apologize.

I think it's much conceptually clearer to fetch a single resource (the
bundle of data + metadata) through HTTP
than it is to fetch a "multipart MIME document", and we do have a
precedent with ZIP and JAR (and I'm sure
that there are a couple others that I'm forgetting).

-- Dirk
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 02:32:45 GMT

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