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

RE: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 08:31:37 -0400
To: Ben Weiner <ben@readingtype.org.uk>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0209C2D415@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Monday, May 17, 2010 7:43 AM Ben Weiner wrote:
> On 17 May 2010, at 12:19, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> >
> > If the WOFF spec should say that WOFF conversion tools must check
> embedding restrictions and notify a user about a particular condition,
> then it would have to be done for a tool to be compliant with the spec.
> You may chose to write a script that doesn't do it, it would simply not
> be considered a conformant implementation.
> OK, that's fine, thank you.
> I don't understand though how this comes within the scope of the W3C's
> work. What is the purpose of writing specifications that cover tools
> that play no part in the process of using  WOFF files on the web? Are
> there equivalent W3C specs for the tools to make HTML files? Should
> there be?

According to the WebFonts WG charter, the mission of the group "is to develop specifications that allow the interoperable deployment of downloadable fonts on the Web ... covering all the technology required for WebFonts." [1]

In my opinion, this clearly covers both the creation of WOFF files and their consumption. The process of creating WOFF files involves parsing and processing multiple different tables and data fields of original fonts, some of the issues have already been addressed by the existing draft WOFF specification [2].

A question has been asked [3] about handling font embedding restrictions and I took an action item to write a draft proposal - the discussion ensued. Since this is not the first time the same question has been asked, I don't think it would be right for the WG to ignore it and not discuss it at all, or try to dismiss it using "law suits" or "out of scope" arguments. With my WG Chair hat on - I am perfectly okay with the fact that we may put good faith efforts into discussing the issue and would decide not to have it addressed in the spec if we cannot reach a consensus. However I am not okay with an attempt to stifle this discussion by introducing arguments that are orthogonal to technical issues related to processing font data tables and bitfields (and informing users of their meaning, if applicable).


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/08/WebFonts/charter.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2010/SUBM-WOFF-20100408/
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010May/0038.html
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 12:31:08 UTC

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