- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:03:24 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, May 20, 2010, 12:19:27 PM, Robert wrote: ROC> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir ROC> <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: ROC> ROC> The big question remains - what can we do to ensure that the ROC> significant percentage of UAs offer support for some form of UI ROC> displaying extended metadata to enable font vendors, web authors ROC> and end users "reap the full benefits, whatever they may be". ROC> ROC> ROC> Lobby UAs to do that. For open-source UAs, contribute patches to ROC> do that. That's really all you can do. As an example, Firefox supports extensions and I run one called FontFinder https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4415/ > FontFinder is created for designers, developers and typographers. It allows a user to analyze the font information of any element on a page, copy any piece(s) of that information to the clipboard, and perform inline replacements to test new layouts. which supplies useful information about the selected text in a random web page, including the font family. The developers of that extension might be interested to add extra info from a WOFF font. ROC> Trying to legislate it ROC> through spec text is going to be painful, clumsy and ineffective. Doing it *solely* through spec text may well be ineffective yes. That doesn't men it should not be in the spec; it means that spec text, coding and lobbying go hand in hand. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 11:03:39 UTC