Re: WebOTF Proposal

Awesome.

I just want to say that as a long-term solution (not to be confused
with any opinions I might have on EOTL, which is a short-term
solution), I have no doubt this is the best thing that has been
proposed so far. I have some minor concerns, but they are separate
from a general sense that this proposal ought to be generally
acceptable to both font vendors and browser developers.

I would encourage everyone involved to endorse this as the right
general solution, albeit with the understanding that there is still
room to refine the details.

Minor concern areas:
- the details of the metadata content, and any redundancy with current
or future info in the OpenType 'name' table
- side effects of stripping the DSIG
- is one private data block enough? Should there be an arbitrary number?
- could the private data block(s) be used for malicious purposes (malware)?

Regards,

T

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tal Leming<tal@typesupply.com> wrote:
> We, (Jonathan Kew, Erik van Blokland and myself) have combined our ZOT and
> .webfont proposals into a new WebOTF proposal. The full specification is
> attached.
>
> In short:
> - The ZOT compression scheme is retained.
> - The XML data from the .webfont proposal, in a reduced and refactored form,
> is stored within the WebOTF file.
>
> We are still endorsing the same-origin restrictions and CORS concepts that
> have been discussed. We are still hopeful that browsers will find ways to
> display the meta data stored in the font.
>
> We'd love to know what you think.
>
> Tal