- From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:15:59 +0000
- To: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, info@ascenderfonts.com, Jonas Sicking <sicking@mozilla.com>, Sergey Malkin <sergeym@microsoft.com>
On 26 Jan 2011, at 02:35, John Daggett wrote: > Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >>> These are fonts that should be rejected because of same >>> origin restrictions? If so, that's a bug and should be fixed. >>> Do you have examples of this? We should make sure the test >>> suite contains any examples that appear to be handled >>> inconsistently across implementations. >> >> No, they are fonts that should be rejected based on WOFF >> conformance criteria i.e. invalid data in a table. Sergey can >> give you exact examples; the last one was served by Typekit. > > Ah, ok, that's a much simpler matter. We haven't reflected > changes in the latest version of the spec yet, so I'm sure it's > possible there are places where we aren't rejecting fonts > properly. Yes, this is certainly true. There are a number of examples in the test-suite collection that currently load in Firefox, but should be rejected according to the spec. (This goes both ways: I've also seen fonts that load in IE9 Preview, but are rejected by Firefox. IIRC, the Jester font used in the HTML5 Blizzard demo is not WOFFed properly, for example, and is correctly rejected by Firefox.) > I think the key here is to assure that those cases are > captured in the test suite, then we can be assured that all > implementations will reject correctly. Right. Tal has made huge progress on the suite, and as implementers we each need to test our work against this and drive towards full conformance. JK
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 10:16:36 UTC