W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 11:59:16 -0700
Message-ID: <4BE9A904.3050205@tiro.com>
To: Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Dave Crossland wrote:

>>> I would expect the browser
>>> folks to object strenuously to this if that was the expectation.
>> There is no expectation at all on UA agents. The proposed text re. embedding
>> bits is that UA's will ignore them completely. The question regards tools
>> for creating WOFF files.

> Why will WOFF tool folks not object strenuously to this?

Why would they? The goal is to clarify the relationship of embedding 
bits to WOFF, and that's in everyone's interest I think. WOFF tool 
makers are not in the position of browsers in which they'd need to 
provide fallback solutions or risk serving undisplayable content, so the 
technical objections to respecting such bits do not apply. What I've 
suggested is a flag that enables a font maker to indicate whether a WOFF 
file can be made from a specific font, i.e. that has the same 
relationship to WOFF creation tools as existing embedding bits have to 
e.g. PDF creation tools or other document embedding methods. It has no 
impact on free fonts or any other form of licensing, so I don't see any 
grounds for objection if it can be made to work technically.

I'm not wedded to this new bit idea in any way. I'm just looking for 
ways to clarify the situation re. embedding bits so that everyone from 
font maker to web author understands what they do and do not imply.

JH
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 19:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:34 UTC