- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:25:57 -0400
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- CC: "robert@ocallahan.org O'Callahan" <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 Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:48 PM Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Kew [mailto:jfkthame@googlemail.com] > > Actually, I'd suggest that unless there are significant technical > > problems with using XML as currently specified (modulo any > > clarifications etc that we decide are needed), we probably shouldn't > be > > reopening this issue. As the Charter > > <http://www.w3.org/2009/08/WebFonts/charter.html> says, "...the group > > would be chartered to only make the minimal changes needed for > > interoperability and standardisation." Replacing the XML metadata > with > > JSON or some other format is hardly such a "minimal change", unless > the > > existing XML option is fundamentally flawed in some way. > > Unless implementations of the metadata block format already exist, or > large > numbers of fonts have been distributed that use the format currently > specified, > there would seem to be limited interop risk to reopening this. This > is probably our last chance. > I would agree with Sylvain that if we were to consider revisiting the definition of the metadata format this is our only chance to do it. I think this kind of activity would still be within our current WG scope since the goal of the format revision (if we get to a consensus) is to improve interoperability and simplify future implementations. Regards, Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 19:25:15 UTC