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: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:37:52 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik5Z5tp2S8btDFSmDprfVYt_Enlr7_571A1bt8C@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Cc: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org, www-font@w3.org, rfink@readableweb.com
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:13 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote:
> John Daggett wrote:
>> I'm fine with a statement such as this. I would change the wording of the
>> first sentence slightly to be more specific and include tool usage:
>>     The font embedding permissions set in
>>     the font contained in a WOFF file MUST
>>     NOT affect load behavior in user agents
>>     and MUST NOT affect whether tools
>>     produce a WOFF file from an underlying
>>     font.
> I'm probably okay with that, given the discussion. I'd like to run this by
> some more font makers, though, before committing to this wording.
> I'd also like, for the sake of precision, to specifically identify the OS/2
> table fsType embedding permissions as the subject of this statement. My
> reasoning here is that future fonts may contain novel permissions data
> elsewhere in the font, specifically relating to WOFF or other web font
> formats, which some tools may opt to respect.
> JH

Seriously? So the WOFF spec would be saying it doesn't care what
future embedding bits are added to fsType, even if those bits attempt
to explicitly deal with WOFF creation or usage?

I'd be cool with your suggested wording if it restricted itself to the
current version of fsType and earlier. It seems excessive to make any
presumptions about the future there.



"I've discovered the worst place to wander while arguing on a
hands-free headset."  http://xkcd.com/736/
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 05:38:27 UTC

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