- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:42:03 +0100
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 7:53:49 PM, John wrote: JD> Several small comments regarding the spec. JD> Overall: JD> I think the styling for testing should be moved to an alternate JD> stylesheet. Agreed; as I said a couple of times on calls and at the f2f, this should be in an alternate stylesheet but I left it in the main one for the meeting, to facilitate discussion of the JD> Section 3: >> If either or both of the metadata or private blocks is not present JD> *are* not present Yes JD> Appendix A: >> Media Type registration JD> This should be in a separate appendix. Yes; it was intended to be. While editing live during the f2f, I was concentrating mainly on the text not on the numbering. >> Subtype name: >> font-woff JD> This is dependent on the top-level domain issue. I would suggest: JD> woff or font-woff, depending on the type name used Agreed. JD> One other minor nit, the date of the spec should be updated to reflect JD> the actual edit date. Yes. Again, I didn't do that at the time because it was being edited live. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 19:43:47 UTC