Re: OpenType fsType and WOFF

Liam R E Quin wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 12:22 +0200, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> [...]
>> Indeed. I suggest that the WOFF spec does not say anything about
>> embedding bits.

> For interoperability, it's probably better to be explicit and explain
> that the exact use of the embedding bits is determined by the context,
> rather than to be silent about them.

I agree. Whatever the outcome of discussion, I'd like to see the WOFF 
spec say something clear and definitive about embedding bits, even if it 
is only to say that they are not relevant to web served fonts. I think 
this is in the interests of browser makers who want to be clear that 
they are not expected to do anything with the bits and font makers who 
want it to be clear that the bits do not imply permission for serve 
fonts on the web.

The point Håkon raises regarding Prince is similar to that raised by 
John Daggett regarding printing from web pages to PDF. At that point, a 
WOFF file has already been created and served, and what is happening is 
embedding of that font within a document. So the embedding bits have 
their normal relevance to document embedding at that point, but this is 
independent of either the implications of fsType bit 1 or a new bit to 
WOFF creation.

JH


PS. I will be travelling for the next couple of days, so will not 
respond promptly.

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 16:09:53 UTC