RE: .webfont Proposal 2

A few comments on this proposal:

1. As you point out, many of the values in the info.xml document map one-to-one with font format fields. It would be beneficial for a future version of this proposal to define this mapping. Ensuring interoperability among the tools that would produce these files is important.
2. This brings up a related question : whether browsers are expected to match all the required values in info.xml manifest with those in the font file. What if info.xml claimed to contain Meiryo but the font file was Gotham ? Is info.xml always authoritative (the simplest) ? Or should the whole font file be ignored if there is a mismatch ? This should be specified
3. I agree with the <fontdata> suggestion as well

Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 23:31:08 UTC