W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

RE: [css3-fonts] Comments on CSS3 Fonts Module LC

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:00:12 +0000
To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
CC: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79E5B05BFEBAF5418BCB714B43F4419923DF7BF9@wob-mail-01>
Hi John,

Thank you and yes, these changes resolve the concerns of my comment.

Best regards,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Daggett [mailto:jdaggett@mozilla.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 9:44 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Cc: W3C Style
> Subject: Re: [css3-fonts] Comments on CSS3 Fonts Module LC
> 
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> 
> > Subclause 4.1 and 4.3: Examples 8 & 9 (nitpick) - Considering that
> > WOFF format is now a W3C Recommendation and is widely supported,
> would
> > it be better to use '.woff' as a default example (here and
> > elsewhere) of a downloadable font? The use of '.ttf' fonts as
> examples
> > may be seen as recommended usage by some folks, I'd rather change
> that
> > perception by using '.woff' for spec examples. The "Example 9" in
> > subclause 4.3 deserves a special attention, where '.eot' is used as
> an
> > example of source definition for use "with older, non-conformant user
> > agents" while the use of '.ttf' implies conformance. [to what?]
> 
> Makes sense.  Changed .ttf examples to .woff and trimmed "non-
> conformant".
> 
> Do these changes resolve your concern?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John Daggett
> 
> revision: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/dbd4337ff7d7


Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 14:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 16 August 2013 14:00:39 UTC