W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Last call comments on WOFF (8)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:56:48 +0200
Message-ID: <338223828.20110427215648@w3.org>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: www-font@w3.org
Hello Bert

You wrote
> 8) Section 4: It is a pity that there are multiple ways to encode the  
> same font, and even to encode the same OpenType file: each table  
> may be compressed or not, extended metadata may be added or not,  
> private data may be added or not. That means you cannot do a simple  
> binary compare to see if two files encode the same OpenType file, let  
> alone the same font. A unique (canonical) format would also have  
> helped with digital signing: Now it is possible to decode and re- 
> encode the font without doing anything else and still end up with a  
> broken digital signature.

Yes, metadata is optional and yes, a table may be compressed or not.

Since the metadata is part of the WOFF file, the same opentype data
may well be present with two different sets of metadata 9for example
the same font may be licensed to two different licensees, with
different conditions or different license IDs.

As to digital signatures, the OpenType spec has a table DSIG and this
will round trip through WOFF without change.

Thus, we don't plan to make any changes based on this comment. Please
respond to indicate whether you accept this resolution.


-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 19:57:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:11 GMT