W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

RE: [css3 fonts] font-specific features

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:41:34 +0100
To: "'Erik van Blokland'" <erik@letterror.com>
Cc: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, "'Sylvain Galineau'" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "'John Daggett'" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>, "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301cb58c1$2c580710$85081530$@com>
Monday, September 20, 2010 7:59 AM <erik@letterror.com>:

>Whether it's pdf or html is not really an issue here.
>The point is that this kind of documentation should not be part of the WOFF
metadata.

Erik,

I don't agree that "it's the point" but I do agree with you that this kind
of documentation should not be a part of the WOFF metadata.
The point of Sylvain's initial query (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is
"how does a web author go about finding out what advanced features a font
contains?"
And that question - if you'd like to see a brisk adoption rate of fonts with
these features - is very much the point.

I simply do not think a PDF containing a written description will be as
effective as an HTML page with a style sheet that shows exactly how these
features are enabled. That's all.
(And a link to such a page could certainly be contained within the metadata.
*That* I could see as potentially being helpful.)

Regards,

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Erik van Blokland
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 7:59 AM
To: rfink@readableweb.com
Cc: 'John Hudson'; 'Sylvain Galineau'; 'John Daggett'; 'www-style';
'www-font'
Subject: Re: [css3 fonts] font-specific features


On Sep 19, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Richard Fink wrote:

> Would it not make a lot of sense to include *a web page* along with the
WOFF (or other format) to demonstrate features, rather than a PDF. That
would be much, much more effective documentation because the CSS would be
there for authors as well. Integrating the advanced features would become
more of a cut-and-paste operation. I am assuming it would be quite time
consuming for web authors to map what they see in a PDF to the equivalent
CSS rules.
> (Reserving judgment until I try doing so myself but experience says a web
page with CSS rules to guide is going to be one heck of a lot easier.)

Whether it's pdf or html is not really an issue here. The point is that this
kind of documentation should not be part of the WOFF metadata. 

Erik
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 12:42:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT