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

Re: OpenType fsType and WOFF (was: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes)

From: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 20:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <97345779.168381.1273635170737.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
I think defining conformant tool behavior based on the embedding bits
of the source OpenType font, new or old,  will be a much bigger
distraction than it's worth.  Defining the exact meaning of these bits
has always been problematic and it may not be universal; a font vendor
may be fine having a trusted service do the WOFF conversion but not a
general user.  

A WOFF conversion tool may be part of a larger application, a content
management system or a font editor.  What should conformant behavior
be for something like a font editor?

Suggesting in the spec that tools issue a warning based on embedding
bits is fine (e.g. restricted embedding) but I don't think *requiring*
tools not to produce a WOFF font based on these bits is a good idea.


John Daggett
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 03:33:24 UTC

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