- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:27:29 -0400
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
- 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 Friday, May 21, 2010 4:35 PM Sylvain Galineau wrote: > I am extremely uncomfortable with a requirement > to reject an otherwise working font because someone screwed up > the XML describing it. No one expects software to completely > fail because the 'About' screen has a bug in it. And I'm quite > confident it does not benefit users. I agree with you and I believe Christopher has already clarified his position. To summarize the current status of the discussion: - I believe we have already reached a consensus that browsers are *not* required to validate the metadata in a WOFF file in order to render a font packaged in it. - WOFF file and the unpacked font should *not* be rejected because of the invalid XML metadata. - Metadata content will only be displayed to a user if the user wants to see it and is asking for it (e.g. by selecting "View font info", "Page info" or a similar option provided by a browser). - Browsers already have the ability to present XML data to a user, and displaying WOFF metadata upon user's request would not introduce any additional implementation complexity. The missing link here is the connection between a user and a metadata in a WOFF file - for an end user to have an ability to see the 'About' screen there's got to be some kind of option enabled by a browser the user can click on. In other words, both syntax and UA behavior must be defined by the WOFF spec, the details of the implementation (what option is presented to a user, how to implement it, what dialog to show if the XML is invalid, etc.) is out of the scope. Regards, Vlad
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 13:28:11 UTC