- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:17:27 +0100
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Langley <agl@google.com>, 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 21 May 2010, at 10:00, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > I am afraid this discussion took sudden, unexpected and absolutely wrong turn here - this is *not*, and has never been about licensing. Metadata allows font vendors and designers to publicize the results of their work, and allows users to easily retrieve the information about fonts they see and like: font name description, who designed it, where to get it, etc. You wouldn’t believe how many times people ask a question where they are trying to guess what a font was they saw somewhere. They take pictures, post them on different forums on the web with hopes that someone may know or recognize the font and/or tell them where they can find it - metadata and the user ability to see it would be the most critical component to help people find the info they want. Absolutely - and I'm also keen for this information to be more readily accessible to users. I don't think there's any controversy about this. > The fact that license info URL may be one of the elements of extended metadata doesn’t change this - this is the information that we want user to be able to see, UA has no need to act on it (and nobody ever asked for it). Right. The only issue we have, I think, is with the suggestion that UAs might be required to reject a WOFF file entirely if the metadata block contains bad data (e.g. malformed XML). Such a requirement is unacceptable because it would mean the UA has to load and check the block even if the user has NOT asked to see any information. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 09:18:06 UTC