- From: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:56:36 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Chris Lilley wrote: >>> TL> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#conform-identical > >>>>> The result of creating a WOFF file and then decoding this to regenerate an sfnt font MUST result in a final font that is bitwise-identical to the well-formed input font. > >>> TL> I suppose that for this one we can create one or more valid SFNT >>> TL> files for an authoring tool to roundtrip. Is that the best way to handle this assertion? > >>> I would think so. > > TL> At the end of the last call I mentioned that we could provide not > TL> only the SFNT files but also small scripts that would validate the > TL> results of these tricky test cases. I've been thinking about this > TL> more and I think it would be easier to simply say "Pass the result > TL> of the conversion of this test case through the WOFF validator and > TL> check to make sure that X is valid." > > Do you mean "sfnt validator", or do you mean "extend the woff validator to accept sfnt as well"? The WOFF validator. > TL> I can modify the validator to > TL> optionally take an SFNT for byte-for-byte reconstruction checking. > TL> I think that would cover everything we need. > > Ah, as an extra parameter? So it takes a woff and an sfnt and checks that the de-woffified result is the same as the other input? Exactly. Something like: woff-validator -s original.otf result.woff If the SFNT option is given an additional set of tests will be performed. Tal
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 00:57:09 UTC