Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Font Table Access API (#400)

Hey @hober - I think we're ready for another go-round on this. Should we re-use this or #399, or open a new issue?

Relative to the above list:

> * [Non-OpenType fonts #19](https://github.com/WICG/local-font-access/issues/19)
> * [Anne's feedback re: Non-goals and alternative approaches #20](https://github.com/WICG/local-font-access/issues/20)

⬆️ I believe these are effectively the same issue, although I may be missing nuance here. These are still fundamental issues, but apply to similar APIs for accessing local resources, e.g. file uploads, such as for images or videos, where web apps must be future-proof against new formats. That might suggest an approach, e.g. allowing (requiring?) web apps to specify `accept` to identify supported content types, e.g. `query({accept: ['font/otf']})`

> * [Fonts need to be sorted #23](https://github.com/WICG/local-font-access/issues/23)

⬆️ Should be resolved.

> * [mention additional fingerprinting surface in details of font versions #25](https://github.com/WICG/local-font-access/issues/25)

⬆️ Added.

> * Please add a Table of Contents to the explainer #26

⬆️ Added.

> * [explainer suggests iterating all the fonts in order to find Consolas #27](https://github.com/WICG/local-font-access/issues/27)

⬆️ Resolved through allowing passing name list to query().


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/400#issuecomment-1051070031

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/400/1051070031@github.com>