- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:16:12 -0400
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- CC: Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:05 PM Tal Leming wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > > > I would like to express my personal preference for option (b) for the > purposes of localization of metadata extensions. > > Just to clarify what we are talking about... > > Was the proposal for localized extension blocks? Like this: > > <metadata version="1.0"> > <uniqueid id="lalala.1.0" /> > <license url="http://lalala.com"> > <text lang="en">A license goes here.</text> > <text lang="fr">Un permis va ici.</text> > </license> > ... > <extensions lang="en"> > ... > </extensions> > <extensions lang="fr"> > ... > </extensions> > </metadata> > Yes, I believe this is the case. Only extension blocks would require matching key/value pairs, the main part of the metadata has all elements explicitly defined so there is no matching there and the localization of each value is straightforward. Thank you, Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 20:17:28 UTC