- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 22:45:33 +0200
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Also sprach Levantovsky, Vladimir: > We all seem to agree that the primary purpose of metadata is to > enable font developers to publicize their work and to make font > information readily accessible to users. We also seem to agree that > it is desirable for browsers to be able to parse and display the > metadata, and, as Christopher pointed out, the ability to present > metadata content to an end user was one of the major factor for > font foundries to support WOFF. It seem logical that we, as experts > in the field should make the language of the specification as clear > and unambiguous as possible, and provide guidance and > recommendations for implementers, instead of merely listing > available options. But you're not recommending that implementors of mobile browsers should follow these guidelines, are you? With a SHOULD in there, you need to explain that, otherwise mobile browsers will be seen as not following the clear and unambigous guidance. With a MAY in there, I don't think you need that language. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 20:46:20 UTC