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 18:22:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4BEA02E1.9040600@tiro.com>
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
CC: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Christopher Slye wrote:

> As likely as that might be, I don't think it's necessary to know or factor it in to our thinking. If conversion tool requirements are established, then it doesn't matter who's doing the converting, right?

Agreed. The question with regard to embedding bits and WOFF creation is 
whether there might be a formal mechanism within fsType that would 
signal that a WOFF file must not be made from a given font, or whether 
all embedding bits should be ignored by such tools.

There are two possibities currently on the table:

1. The existing 'Restricted License Embedding' is defined as MUST NOT 
for WOFF creation.

2. A new bit -- or bits, as Tom suggested -- is added and the OS/2 table 
version updated to indicate MUST NOT for WOFF creation.

John Daggett has pointed out what seems to me to be a valid technical 
problem with the first possibility, which is why I suggested the second 
possibility. There are hermeneutic problems with the first possibility 
too, stemming from disagreement over the correct interpretation of the 
wording of the OT spec, but I think this is moot given John D's 
technical concern.

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 01:23:27 UTC

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