- From: Oliver Rigby <oliverrigby@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:26:07 +0100
- To: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:10 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. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:10 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. Out of interest, what is the logic behind storing XML within a binary file? My belief was the main advantage of the .webfont proposal being XML and .zip-based was that it was easily constructed by commonly available tools and the XML was human-readable, whereas a new binary file format is inherently neither, and XML adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to any WebOTF creator or parser (although I concede that web-browsers will already have XML parsers built-in). Unless there's a compelling reason to use XML that I've overlooked, I think a good old-fashioned table would be a simpler, easier-to-implement solution that does mostly the same thing.
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 11:26:48 UTC