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

Re: A way forward

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:14:37 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600907241514x1e9333a0qb3db075411d9f48d@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:48 AM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:

> As Tal asks: is there something about .webfont that you do not like? What?
>

Personally I think XML-based wrapper formats are overkill. Applying XML
parsing adds code, slows things down, and creates potential interop issues
due to bugs.

In practice there doesn't seem to be any advantage over storing the metadata
in an SFNT table. The touted advantages seem to be:
a) works for font formats that aren't extensible with arbitrary metadata ---
but we don't care about any such existing formats, and the chances of a new
font format becoming popular that isn't extensible are zero
b) works in a uniform way over font formats (or even non-font formats) that
are extensible in different ways --- seems to be of minimal value since we
don't care about any such formats today, and as far as I know no-one forsees
the need for a new non-SFNT format; YAGNI applies
c) adds an obfuscation layer --- we have much simpler ways to achieve that

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 22:15:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT