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

Re: Last call comments on WOFF (8)

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:42:49 +0200
To: www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <201106072042.50394.bert@w3.org>
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 21:56:48 Chris Lilley wrote:
> 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.

Accepted. As I said in the original comment, it would have been a nice 
feature. That doesn't mean the format is unusable without it.

  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2011 18:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:43 UTC