W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > January to March 2011

Comments on the WOFF Last Call

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:35:22 -0800
To: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B1579537B04B0F7C@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
The following comments were discussed in the CSS Working Group and it was agreed that the comments are valid, but not particularly related to CSS so I am forwarding them as individual comments. With the exception of comment 2, these comments are primarily editorial and are based on experience writing W3C specs.

I note the following:

1.       The introduction has normative conformance requirements. This does not seem like the right place for such MUSTs.

2.       In the uniqueid element in the Metadata section, there is a note:" The id attribute of the uniqueid element, and of several further metadata elements defined below, is not required to conform to the rules for the XML type ID; its form is at the discretion of the font creator or vendor." It does not seem appropriate for a W3C spec to advocate violation of XML well formedness, especially since the uniqueid element is empty and could contain the unique ID as its value or the some other attribute than "id" that is less constrained might be used. Also, the conformance requirement summary for Metadata says, "The decompressed data MUST be well-formed XML" which seems to make the Note irrelevant.

3.       This is a nit, but it would be nice to state what the "content" of the element is and not just what the attributes are in the Metadata section.

4.       It seems to be a bad practice to have two places where conformance requirements are stated: in the normative text and in the Summary of Conformance Requirements, perhaps one of these should be described as informative and linked to the other.

Steve Zilles
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 17:41:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:10 GMT