Re: Agenda, action items and suggested WOFF changes

>
> 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).
>

Please clarify what the technical reason is for having a warning dialog for
the fsType field in WOFF creation tools.

You mentioned in an earlier part of this thread that you believed it would
be beneficial for web authors, however that sounds more like a user desire
than a technical requirement, in which case it might be best left to the
implementor's discretion.

-Matt