W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: WebOTF Proposal

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:54:50 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0908061254l33837cdfu5501a78bd23fc957@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>

I just want to say that as a long-term solution (not to be confused
with any opinions I might have on EOTL, which is a short-term
solution), I have no doubt this is the best thing that has been
proposed so far. I have some minor concerns, but they are separate
from a general sense that this proposal ought to be generally
acceptable to both font vendors and browser developers.

I would encourage everyone involved to endorse this as the right
general solution, albeit with the understanding that there is still
room to refine the details.

Minor concern areas:
- the details of the metadata content, and any redundancy with current
or future info in the OpenType 'name' table
- side effects of stripping the DSIG
- is one private data block enough? Should there be an arbitrary number?
- could the private data block(s) be used for malicious purposes (malware)?



On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tal Leming<tal@typesupply.com> wrote:
> We, (Jonathan Kew, Erik van Blokland and myself) have combined our ZOT and
> .webfont proposals into a new WebOTF proposal. The full specification is
> attached.
> In short:
> - The ZOT compression scheme is retained.
> - The XML data from the .webfont proposal, in a reduced and refactored form,
> is stored within the WebOTF file.
> We are still endorsing the same-origin restrictions and CORS concepts that
> have been discussed. We are still hopeful that browsers will find ways to
> display the meta data stored in the font.
> We'd love to know what you think.
> Tal
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 19:55:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC