RE: WOFF and extended metadata

> 
> A large number of foundries and designers endorsed WOFF *including* the
> metadata fields that are in the spec. I don't know how much more
> clarity you can reasonably expect.
> 
> Tal

As you told me earlier that you received no particular feedback
on the metadata block at the time the proposal was designed,
that was not at all clear.

What exaclt level of approval are we talking about ? Those vendors
who release WOFF fonts and include the metadata block are of course
in. Then we have those font vendors who tried to 'hand-test' your
format with their product and provided you with feedback. 

Do these two groups constitute a majority of WOFF supporters ? The 
approval of those who have approved in principle without kicking the 
tyres in practice is not so valuable from an implementation standpoint.
Most specs make sense when you read them; it's when you implement them
or try to use them that you find the problems. 

To conclude: if this metadata format *has* been used and/or 'hand-tested' 
Against actual products then it would be great to see the results. It would 
make great informative appendix material. 

It would also be helpful to hear from those foundries about what they think
they'd use extensions for. It may be a guess but I'd rather validate the
design against something than nothing ?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tal Leming [mailto:tal@typesupply.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:09 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: Erik van Blokland; www-font@w3.org; 3668 FONT
> Subject: Re: WOFF and extended metadata
> 
> 
> On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> 
> > And remain so until a plurality of
> > font vendors agree on a stable format.
> 
> A large number of foundries and designers endorsed WOFF *including* the
> metadata fields that are in the spec. I don't know how much more
> clarity you can reasonably expect.
> 
> Tal
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 22:30:14 UTC