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

Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:31:08 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZwUPWTAYwWp1rZ-3MoLAu0DF44z1A267N8g70@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> But if the vendor, in some cases, allows you to convert your TTFs, why do we
> need to decide which embedding bit(s) allow this conversion ? We're adding
> an extra step for font and tool vendors for what exact benefit ? What if a
> font vendor like Adobe want to allow thousands of existing customers to convert
> some of their catalog to web use but they don't have the right bits set currently?
> Should their future tool prevent their customers from doing that ?
>
> I don't mean to sound like this makes no sense. It's clear that it does to you
> guys but I'm missing something.

That's why existing fonts are not treated as having the bit at all,
it's just a reserved bit. The bit being zero only has meaning if the
font has a new version of the OS/2 table, signifying that the unset
bit has meaning. (Or if a new version of the OS/2 table is
unacceptable, we'd have to use two bits.)

Regards,
-- 
"I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a
hands-free headset."  http://xkcd.com/736/
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 03:31:45 UTC

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