W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

Re: CSS3 @font-face / EOT Fonts - new compromise proposal

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:48:47 -0500
Message-ID: <49190EAF.5090102@mit.edu>
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

John Daggett wrote:
> Really?  Even though that compression type would only apply to TT data?

An interesting question (for me at least) is whether the compression 
type could just be "gzip", actually.

> Are there other examples of compression schemes used with Content-Encoding that are data specific?

I don't know of any.  The HTTP RFC only defines 
gzip/compress/deflate/identity encodings.

But from a pure HTTP compliance point of view, one can just make up 
encoding names.  They SHOULD be registered with eh IANA, but once that's 
done, it doesn't look to me like there is any legitimacy problem at all.

But as far as what the "right" thing to do is, here's the description of 
Content-Encoding from RFC 2616:

   Content coding values indicate an encoding transformation that has
   been or can be applied to an entity. Content codings are primarily
   used to allow a document to be compressed or otherwise usefully
   transformed without losing the identity of its underlying media
   type and without loss of information. Frequently, the entity is
   stored in coded form, transmitted directly, and only decoded by
   the recipient.

Which is more or less exactly what the proposal is, as I understand it.

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 04:49:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:16 GMT