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

Re: Last call comments on WOFF (10)

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 16:43:58 +0100
Message-ID: <9710085643.20110209164358@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> 10) Section 8: I didn't check that the summary is indeed compatible  
BB> with the earlier sections, but it is clear that it contains some  
BB> things that were already said earlier. I get uncomfortable when a  
BB> spec repeats things in a normative section. There is almost certainly
BB> a contradiction somewhere. And if not now then in the next version of
BB> the draft. Shouldn't this section be labeled as informative instead?

Other commentors have also noted the desirability of labelling this as informative, the risk of getting  out of sync with the main spec, and queried the utility of this section in general.

The WG has not yet made a decision on how best to proceed, but is discussing it.




-- 
 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 15:44:01 GMT

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