- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:29:33 +0000
- To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- CC: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
> From: Tal Leming [mailto:tal@typesupply.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:19 AM > Extensions to the metadata are allowed, but they may not be displayed > by UAs. If extensions are added, they must not be nested any deeper > than two levels from the top-level metadata element. That is what I propose whether or not we agree on a metadata extension mechanism i.e. if it's not defined in the spec, browsers may ignore it. To be clear, I'm not concerned about nesting (even though I think little should be needed) as much as I want to render a simple known schema vs. making a best-guess - i.e. crappy - rendering of any arbitrary elements from any random namespace. I thought it'd help if there was a way to add some level of extra metadata that would be rendered reliably across browsers. If that's not needed, I'm fine with just saying browsers may ignore anything the spec does not define. I feel that we're missing out on a very simple and reliable way to add value, however.
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 15:30:07 UTC