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

RE: Comments on the WOFF Last Call

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:59:05 -0800
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B1579537CDA58224@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
Either of these proposed solutions would resolve my comment. I do think it is very nice to have an informative summary with links to the normative text, but do worry about it staying up to date in the future.

Steve Zilles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 6:44 AM
> To: Stephen Zilles
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on the WOFF Last Call
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 6:35:22 PM, Stephen wrote:
> SZ> 4.       It seems to be a bad practice to have two places where
> SZ> conformance requirements are stated: in the normative text and in
> SZ> the Summary of Conformance Requirements, perhaps one of these
> SZ> should be described as informative and linked to the other.
> We agree and are discussing several ways to resolve this.
> One way, as you say, is to mark the appendix as informative and to link
> each requirement in the appendix to its defining instance in the normative
> prose.
> Another option is to remove the appendix completely, if it adds no real
> value.
> --
>  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 18:59:43 UTC

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