- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:44:24 -0700
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Cc: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:15 PM, John Hudson<tiro@tiro.com> 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.
With regards to (2), I'm not much concerned about future font formats;
if expressing various kinds of metadata is an issue, they will likely
deal with it. However, existing "legacy" formats such as "PostScript"
("Type 1" to font geeks) or various bitmap formats don't have a
particularly good way of coping with this metadata.
I'm not convinced that the flexibility to support these formats is
important, but it's not an unreasonable desire, and one which is best
served by not relying on all the metadata being in the font.
Regards,
T
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 15:45:03 UTC