- From: Oliver Rigby <oliverrigby@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:15:24 +0100
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Tal Leming<tal@typesupply.com> wrote: > The structure of the XML is more extensible than a binary table. It is. I just don't think licensing data is sufficiently complex that it needs such an elaborate extensible structured data format - I simply don't think it justifies the extra complexity over a pure binary file format. And if it _is_ necessary, I don't see why we shouldn't go the whole hog and make the whole format, including the header, XML-based, therefore gain the advantages of XML for the whole format - a format that would be better structured, human readable, and be more extensible and future-proof. Personally, I think this is a middle-ground compromise which gets the worst of both worlds. By making it binary, it's not human-readable and you need a specialised tool to make the fonts. By including XML, font makers need XML parser and read an XML doctype, as well as increasing the barriers to reading/writing metadata which may discourage people supporting it at all, which would be the opposite of the intention. Do any other non-legacy file formats combine binary and XML in this way?
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:16:04 UTC