W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > May 2010

RE: WOFF and extended metadata

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 23:57:21 +0000
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E21494767@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Well, it’s just code, right ? ☺

To be clear:

1.       I am totally fine with parsing *and* rendering the schema currently defined in the spec.

2.       If we want to enable font vendors to add metadata to this format *and* show this data to the user as part of the metadata info page/dialog/control, then I *strongly* prefer that we define how the additional metadata may be added to the document and keep it as simple as possible.

3.       If #1 and #2 are not sufficient and a font vendor does want or need to add arbitrary XML to the metadata block, they remain free to do so. While we would of course parse it with the rest of the XML in the block, we would make no attempt to render it. (It’s a font file metadata UI element, not a generic XML UA). To see that proprietary XML, interested users will be able to look at the raw source for the entire block.


From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:42 PM
To: Jonathan Kew
Cc: Sylvain Galineau; www-font@w3.org; public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WOFF and extended metadata

There is also at least one BSD-licensed Javascript implementation of XSLT:
http://goog-ajaxslt.sourceforge.net/


Personally I think processing WOFF metadata XML into some readable format is not a problem.

Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 23:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:04:21 UTC