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

RE: Combining ZOT with .webfont metadata

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:50:35 -0400
Message-ID: <E955AA200CF46842B46F49B0BBB83FF297EDAC@wil-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
To: "Thomas Phinney" <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Cc: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, "Tal Leming" <tal@typesupply.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-font" <www-font@w3.org>
On Monday, July 27, 2009 11:50 AM Thomas Phinney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Levantovsky,
> Vladimir<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >>
> ...
> > 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
> The font may contain all sorts of metadata that isn't relevant for
> webfont use. Is there any inherent reason that such metadata would
> *conflict* with having the relevant metadata needed for webfont use?
> > 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.
> I'm thinking that the problem of needing to revise the font exists
> anyway. Both of these scenarios mean that even the pre-existing
> metadata in a TT/OT font may very well be incorrect and need
> replacing, no?
> In the case of the independent font distributor, either they sell
> fonts under the foundries' original license terms (no need to crack
> open the font either in general or for webfonts), or they are selling
> them under the distributor's own license terms, in which case even
> data in the original font (license, license URL) may need updating.

It's not just about needing to revise the font data. The point I was trying to make is that there are cases when metadata encoded in a font may *need* to be different from what would have been encoded in a .webfont wrapper. And, in general, I believe that it would be easier for UA to retrieve the metadata from .webfont XML wrapper than to dig it out from inside the font (especially when platforms do not provide any API for it).


> Regards,
> T
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 20:51:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:40 UTC