Re: .webfont Proposal 2

> The revised format is now a compressed file containing  
> two files with the following names:
>  info.xml
>  fontdata
> The info.xml file contains numerous bits of data describing the font  
> data. 

So for OpenType fonts this is simply a wrapper format around the raw
font data included in an archive format (in this case a zipfile)?  Are
there additional requirements for the structure of the fontdata?

> format - This defines the format of the data in the fontdata file.  
> Required.
> name - The name of the font. Required.
> creationdate - The date this particular font file was created. Required.
> vendorname - Name of the vendor of the font. Suggested.
> vendorurl - URL for the vendor of the font. Suggested.
> designcredits - A list of designers of the font. Optional.
> license - A license for the font. Optional.
> licenseurl - URL to licensing info for the font. Optional.
> copyright - A copyright for the font. Optional.
> trademark - A trademark for the font. Optional.
> allow - A list of URLs allowed to use the font. Optional.
> description - Text describing the font. Optional.
> privatedata - Arbitrary, private information set by the vendor of the  
> font. Font vendors could use this to include any data that they deem  
> necessary. Optional.

I'm wondering who would create these files?  Would authors purchase
fonts in this format or use tools to create these fonts from their
existing library of fonts?  If tools are used to create these you
probably need to say a little more about what that workflow would look
like and where the data above would come from.  Would this data be added
to the font metadata in the name table?

To achieve interoperability you need to have more than simply "Optional"
next to data elements like the "allow" element.  Either it is
informative, provided for displaying information about the font
resource, or has a defined behavior which is consistent across user

John Daggett
Mozilla Japan

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 21:56:44 UTC