- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:03:33 -0400
- To: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, "Tal Leming" <tal@typesupply.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Sunday, July 26, 2009 6:16 PM John Hudson wrote: > > >> So, I suggest that one (a) separates the semantics from the syntax in > >> .webfont, and (b) come up with a proposal on how the semantics can be > >> encoded within TT/OT. The resulting files can easily be encoded in > >> ZOT. As such, this combines the best of both proposals. > > > This is an interesting idea. We're going to give it some serious > > consideration. > > My caveats in regard to (b) are 1) that if one wants data that would be > required for a web font to be included within the font data this > implies > engagement with the OT and OFF standard procedures in parallel with W3C > procedures, and 2) this seems to defeat the goal of being able to wrap > other kinds of font data. > Other caveats to consider is that the semantics of what needs to be encoded in a font in some cases may need to be different from .webfont metadata: 3) a font can be licensed for multiple different uses that are not all web related, and the license information encoded in TT/OT font itself may not always be relevant for webfont use, and 4) font foundry that developed a font may not be the same font vendor from whom a font was licensed. It could be another foundry that acquired the rights to that font, or an independent font distributor that sells fonts from multiple font foundries. So, the semantics of what is encoded in a font and what one want to include in .webfont metadata may be different. Vladimir
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 15:05:23 UTC