- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:17:52 -0400
- To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:26 AM Adam Langley wrote: > > If it helps settle the question then I can state that Chrome, for one, > will never try to drag an XML parser into the font rendering pipeline > just to validate metadata; irrespective of the spec. > > Nor will we accept patches to do so. > It would help greatly to clarify things if you tell us where you see a connection between XML metadata and font rendering pipeline. For example, JPEG file format includes EXIF metadata - most image viewers allow you to see it via properties / image info dialog but it has nothing to do with JPEG decoder that processes image data. Similar, font data encoded in WOFF and XML-formatted metadata are two separate and completely independent blocks of data. Unpacked font data goes into the font rendering pipeline while metadata remains to be a part of the WOFF file. If UA provided a dialog displaying font info encoded in metadata, how could it possibly affect font rendering pipeline? Thank you, Vladimir
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 14:17:11 UTC