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

Re: [www-font] WOFF metadata - should we require (rather than recommend) the use of UTF-8?

From: <mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:34:42 +0900
To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
Cc: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <20110601083442.59746701.mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp>
Hi,

Although I don't know the popularity ratio of UTF-16
and UTF-8 in existing XML content, I think most XML
specs (and most XML implementations) permits both of
UTF-8 and UTF-16, so, the exclusion of UTF-16 can add
extra care to make a WOFF object by generic XML
implementations.

Could you describe the expected advantage to exclude
UTF-16? If there is any preference coming from non-
XML field, it should be clarified.

Regards,
mpsuzuki

On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:59:48 +0100
Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com> wrote:

>Hello WG,
>
>The current text of the WOFF spec says:
>
>   The extended metadata MUST be well-formed XML encoded in UTF-8 or
>   UTF-16. The use of UTF-8 encoding is recommended.
>
>I'd like to suggest that we simplify this by requiring the use of
>UTF-8. I'm not aware that there has been any actual use of UTF-16 for
>this purpose in deployed content, and mandating UTF-8 would mean that
>UAs wishing to do something with the metadata (such as present a "Font
>Info"  panel to the user) don't need to sniff the data to detect the
>encoding and then do an appropriate conversion.
>
>So I propose replacing the text quoted above with:
>
>   The extended metadata MUST be well-formed XML encoded in UTF-8.
>
>Comments?
>
>JK
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 23:37:37 GMT

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