Re: Last call comments on WOFF (1)

On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:16:26 PM, Bert wrote:

BB> 1) I'd like to say one more time that letting a URL carry information
BB> about the meaning of a resource is counter to W3C's common  
BB> architecture for the Web and simply a bad idea. 

Could you please

a) state which URL in the WOFF specification you are referring to. For example, there is a url attribute on the vendor element, and one on the description element.
b) cite the section in AWWW to which you are referring.
c) Clarify how a) contradicts b)

BB> If I move a file to a
BB> different server (and hopefully leave a redirect behind), the file  
BB> still means the same thing. If I distribute it over p2p, on a CD, or  
BB> coin a URN for it, it is still the same file and should not act any  
BB> differently. Going against this architecture *will* lead to problems.

It is not clear how what you state about moving resource representations to different resources relates to the WOFF specification, or how it contradicts AWWW. Again, specific citations would help understand your intent here.

BB> And it's not like we don't know how to do it right. The way to encode
BB> usage metadata for fonts, in a protocol-independent and machine  
BB> readable way, was invented by Microsoft for EOT more than ten years  
BB> ago. The exact syntax doesn't matter, but the data has to be at the  
BB> application level, not in the URL and not in the protocol.

That part is also not clear. EOT uses an embedded URL to indicate with which website it can be used. But you seem to indicate that using a URI for this is a bad idea. Also, EOT doesn't have such URIs. So, the relevance of that comment to WOFF is also unclear.




-- 
 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 Wednesday, 9 February 2011 14:52:53 UTC