- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:46:28 -0400
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- CC: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.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 27, 2010 9:59 PM Tal Leming wrote: > > On May 27, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > Then the next release may show it. But I'd like to avoid any future > > revs by defining a way to extend the metadata that will cover most > > needs I'd expect for something as basic as file metadata. > > Aha. I think this is a key part of your position that was not clear. > You believe that we should lock down the metadata spec at version 1.0 > and never add new official elements. > I don't think the intention is to lock down the metadata spec and *never* add new elements - I'd say that specifying the metadata extension mechanism will significantly reduce the need to rev the spec just to add new metadata, but we still can do it if and when the needs arise. Another benefit of this extension mechanism is that it allows vendors to easily specify metadata that is arbitrary and guaranteed to be visible at the same time. For example, we would not want to rev the spec to accommodate vendor-specific metadata, yet this could be something some vendors would very much like to happen. With the extensions mechanism defined - there is no need to rev the spec. I can include vendors specific metadata (such as my product IDs, transaction ID if fonts are licensed online, etc.) that is not defined by the spec - this vendor-specific info could help our tech support to handle possible calls from the field yet standardizing it as part of the spec may not make much sense for other vendors. Regards, Vlad
Received on Friday, 28 May 2010 13:50:09 UTC