- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:47:07 +0100
- To: 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
In the light of the WG discussions and the messages I've been seeing on the mailing lists, I have added a definition of an <extension> element to the metadata section of the spec. I'll circulate a new draft soon, but in the meantime here is a sketch of what I've currently got for the metadata extension:
<extension [id="foo"]>
<!-- zero or more extension elements allowed within metadata -->
<name [lang="en"]>Name for this extension block</name>
<!-- name of the extension; optional; localizable -->
<item [id="bar"]>
<!-- one or more metadata items within each extension element -->
<name [lang="en"]>Name of this metadata item</name>
<!-- name of the metadata item; required; localizable -->
<value [lang="en"]>Value of this metadata item</value>
<!-- value of the metadata item; required; localizable -->
</item>
</extension>
The <name> and <value> elements that are noted as "localizable" here can be repeated and given lang tags so that the UA can choose the best available entry in each case, just as with the existing <text> elements in the already-defined metadata. (The spec will describe this in more detail.)
A single level of "grouping" for extensions is in effect provided, because multiple <extension> elements can be included, and each can be given a (localizable) name that the UA would be expected to use when displaying the extended metadata.
This seems to me like a reasonable balance between flexibility and simplicity, and should be easy for a UA to present using a general-purpose mechanism. Is this something we can agree to take forward, or are there concerns or use-cases that it fails to adequately address?
JK
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 15:47:54 UTC