- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:18:35 +0100
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- CC: WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 9:12:36 PM, Vladimir wrote: LV> On Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:52 PM Chris Lilley wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 6:03:06 PM, Vladimir wrote: >> LV> 2. Clause 6, par. 4 (Extended metadata block) >> LV> The last sentence of the paragraph 4 says "If the metadata block >> LV> is not followed by a private data block, it MUST either be padded >> LV> with null bytes to the next 4-byte boundary, or contain no >> LV> additional padding after the end of the block." >> LV> It needs to be revised - it seems to say that the last block MUST >> LV> either be padded or not padded. (which one is true?) >> I read it as saying there can be at most 0..3 bytes of padding, but no >> more; and that any padding must only be sufficient to take it to the >> next longword boundary. LV> I believe this is what we want it to say, and the part of the sentence "it MUST ... be padded LV> with null bytes to the next 4-byte boundary" seems to says LV> exactly that. The presence of "either ... or" kind of throws me LV> off because it can be read as "If metadata block is not followed LV> by a private data block, it MUST ... contain no additional LV> padding", no matter the longword boundary. To be precise, we might LV> want to remove the second "or" case and add "if necessary, it MUST LV> be padded with null bytes to the next 4-byte boundary." I agree. >> I seem to recall discussion that the OT spec required padding between >> tables but was silent or ambiguous about padding after the last table. LV> Yes, this is true, but in practice most of the tools do add LV> padding for all tables, including the last one. We actually LV> discuss this in the WOFF spec as well, in the par. 10 of clause 4 LV> in the "Font table padding" (the text that is now normative). LV> I think that it would be good to be consistent and have the same LV> requirement applied to all data blocks in the WOFF file. I agree also. -- 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 20:18:43 UTC