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

Re: Last call comments on WOFF (3)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 15:58:15 +0100
Message-ID: <695299515.20110208155815@w3.org>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: www-font@w3.org
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:16:26 PM, Bert wrote:

BB> 3) Section 7 Private date block: Why is the padding at the end a  
BB> "should"? I could understand "must" (something you can test), or  
BB> "may" (just ignore it). But if you are going to ignore the padding  
BB> anyway, why should generators try hard to not write it? Ditto for the
BB> padding of the extended metadata block.

BB> It is also ironic that the specification accuses the OpenType spec of
BB> not being clear about the padding of the final table, and then itself
BB> allows that padding to vary. (Sure, WOFF is not _unclear_, but the  
BB> effect is the same. Imagine that some future Meta-WOFF wants to  
BB> encode WOFF: it will have the same problems as WOFF in ensuring  
BB> roundtrip encoding...)

BB> Which means that a "must" seems the best choice. Whether it is "must  
BB> be omitted" or "must be included" is less important, although doing  
BB> the same for all blocks, whether the last or not, seems easiest.

We agree and have decided that "must be omitted" makes most sense. Thus, the end of the private data block (if present) coincides with the end of the file.

Please let us know if this change responds to your comment. (your other comments will be the subject of separate mails, for tracking).

Tracker, this relates to
Replace last sentence of section 7: End of Private Data block must correspond with the end of the last file
Jonathan Kew

 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 Tuesday, 8 February 2011 14:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:42 UTC